United States v. Reynolds
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12790
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Reynolds assisted Petters in routing $12 billion through Nationwide's bank accounts, disguising funds as merchandise purchases.
- Investors were misled into believing funds were used to buy consumer electronics for resale; funds ultimately financed Petters's Ponzi scheme.
- Reynolds pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and was sentenced to 130 months' imprisonment.
- A presentence report assigned a total offense level of 37, criminal history category I, with an advisory range of 210–240 months, and denied a minor role reduction.
- Reynolds argued for a minor/minimal role adjustment and highlighted his cooperation and health; the district court nonetheless imposed a lengthy sentence after weighing 3553(a) factors.
- The court explained its reasoning, comparing Reynolds to other participants and concluding his cooperation and the seriousness of the offense warranted a sentence well below the guidelines range but still substantial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of sentencing explanation | Reynolds argues the court failed to justify the sentence and mischaracterized his role. | Reynolds contends the court adequately explained reasons and role, or should have applied a minor role reduction. | Court provided sufficient, specific explanation under 3553(a); no procedural error. |
| Correctness of offense level calculation | PSR overstates offense level by laundering amount rather than profits. | Base level increases with laundered funds per § 2S1.1(a)(2) tied to value laundered. | Calculation based on $12 billion laundered is correct; not based on profits. |
| Weight given to 3553(a) factors and substantive reasonableness | Sentence excessive given Reynolds's relatively lesser role and cooperation. | Court properly weighed factors, considering age, health, cooperation, and risk to public. | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within discretion afforded by advisory guidelines. |
| Disparity with co-participants' sentences | Disparities show Reynolds's sentence is unwarranted compared to others like Catain. | Disparity is warranted due to Reynolds's broader cooperation and longer criminal history; not similarly situated to Catain. | Disparity reasonable; Reynolds not similarly situated to Catain; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonable sentencing standard; advisory system)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; abuse of discretion in review of sentences)
- United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review; factors for substantive review)
- United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2007) (range of choice after advisory guidelines)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion in weighing 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Frausto, 636 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2011) (unwarranted disparity requires similar records and conduct)