United States v. O'Doherty
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12012
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- O'Doherty, a long-time commodities trader, used shell entities to conceal personal income and did not file or pay taxes for 1994-2003.
- He pled guilty to one count of tax evasion for 2001, with a plea agreement detailing a tax-loss figure of $425,766 and a non-binding, preliminary guideline range.
- Civil action 1994-2000 sought taxes totaling $917,801; those figures were, at sentencing, incorporated as relevant conduct from the civil suit.
- PSR added uncharged conduct (1994-2000) to charged conduct (2001-2003) to reach tax losses over $1 million, affecting base offense level.
- O'Doherty argued for limiting relevant conduct to charged years per the plea agreement and for a lower loss figure.
- The district court adopted the PSR, applying a sophisticated means enhancement and sentencing within a broader range, ultimately imposing 24 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether plea agreement limited relevant conduct to charged years | O'Doherty argues the government promised to cap relevant conduct at charged years | Schilling-based reading shows no such promise to exclude uncharged years | No breach; agreement allowed broader relevant conduct as non-binding and uncertain. |
| sufficiency of tax-loss proof at sentencing | Government lacked proof for losses outside the charged period | PSR reliably described civil-tax figures; reliable evidence supports loss estimates | PSR-based figures properly used; no failure of proof. |
| application of sophisticated means enhancement | Use of shell corporations not inherently sophisticated | Corporations used to conceal income show sophisticated means | Enhancement justified; district court did not err. |
| impact of plea agreement on later calculations | Agreement fixed loss range and calculations at plea | Note that calculations were preliminary and non-binding; later figures permissible | Agreement allowed later adjustments; no breach or error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schilling, 142 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 1998) (plea terms interpreted; government retains broad rights to present conduct)
- United States v. Monroe, 580 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2009) (special public-interest concerns in plea interpretations; objective review)
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (interpretation against drafter; favor defendant when ambiguous)
- United States v. Artley, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2007) (PSR reliability and sentencing use of information)
- United States v. Coonce, 961 F.2d 1268 (7th Cir. 1992) (shifts burden on sentencing evidence; PSR reliance)