United States v. Ryan
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20587
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Matthew John Ryan pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and was sentenced to 121 months' imprisonment.
- Original judgment entered October 12, 2011; restitution proceedings produced an amended judgment entered May 1, 2015, which superseded the original; appeal treated as challenging the amended judgment's sentence.
- At sentencing the district court applied a 4‑level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) (2010) for offenses involving 50 or more victims.
- The district court relied on a U.S. Attorney "restitution list" compiled from SEC reports, FBI questionnaires, and FBI interviews; that list identified over 50 victims, including spouses counted separately.
- Ryan contested the victim count (arguing only ~31–32 victims) and challenged the substantive reasonableness of his within‑Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offense involved 50 or more "victims" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2) | Government: restitution list is reliable and shows >50 victims; married investors can be counted separately | Ryan: his list (≈31–32) is more accurate and the government overstated victims | Court affirmed: district court did not clearly err; restitution list met reliability standard and spouses holding joint investments may be counted as separate victims |
| Whether the 121‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Government: within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable in most cases | Ryan: sentence is substantively unreasonable (no further detail in opinion) | Court affirmed: within‑Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable and not an exceptional case warranting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (district courts have broad discretion at sentencing)
- United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (district courts enjoy broad sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 647 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2011) (victim count: legal standard and clear‑error review for factual findings)
- United States v. Lacey, 699 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2012) (application of § 2B1.1 enhancements)
- United States v. Harris, 718 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2013) (counting spouses as separate victims is proper)
- United States v. Norman, 776 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2015) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
- United States v. Wagner‑Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (substantive‑reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Ingram, 721 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2013) (Guidelines sentences ordinarily reasonable)
- United States v. Chu, 714 F.3d 742 (2d Cir. 2013) (within‑Guidelines sentences not usually substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Brooks, 732 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2013) (apply the Guidelines in effect at sentencing)