United States v. Schlueter, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4646

Scott Schlueter, a registered broker-dealer, conducted a fraudulent investment scheme defrauding multiple victims of over $300,000.
He pled guilty to securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.
The district court sentenced him to 48 months, above the guideline range of 33 to 41 months, citing the harm to victims and egregious conduct.
Victims included an elderly couple (Watersons) who invested nearly $280,000 and a widow (Staley) who invested about $40,000; another couple was also defrauded.
Schlueter argued for 24 months; the government urged within guidelines; no objections to the PSR; the judge emphasized victim impact and lack of accounting for conduct.
On appeal, Schlueter challenged the sufficiency of the explanation for the above-range sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence above the guidelines was adequately explained	Schlueter contends the judge failed to explain why the guidelines underrepresented the offense.	Schlueter's argument is that the judge mischaracterized the guidelines as ignoring relevant factors.	Sentence adequately explained; variance supported by factors beyond guideline accounting.
Whether the court erred by treating guidelines as mandatory	Schlueter argues procedural error from treating guidelines as mandatory and ignoring § 3553(a) factors.	Government contends the court appropriately considered § 3553(a) and explained why above-range was warranted.	No procedural error; proper consideration of § 3553(a) and justification for variance.
Whether a vulnerable-victim adjustment should have been applied	Schlueter argues that § 3A1.1(b) should have been used to raise the sentence further.	Government notes adjustment possible but not required; argues existing justification suffices.	The absence of the adjustment does not render sentence unreasonable; its availability reinforces reasonableness.
Whether the district court could have faced a higher range if adjustments were applied	Schlueter asserts the court could have increased range with § 3A1.1(b)(1) and related enhancements.	Government acknowledges potential, but the chosen sentence was still reasonable within framework.	Assessment confirms 48 months within reason given circumstances; presumption if adjustment applied.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (above-range needs adequate explanation; guidelines are not mandatory)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (a non-guidelines factor can affect reasonableness review)
United States v. Bohanon, 290 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2002) (upholding above-range sentence for degraded conduct toward victims)
United States v. Straw, 616 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (above-range sentence upheld where victims near retirement were targeted)
United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2007) (upholding district court's above-range variance in vulnerable-victim context)
United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2008) (vulnerable-victim adjustment discussed in context of sentence adequacy)
United States v. Sims, 329 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2003) (vulnerable-victim considerations in guidelines adjustments)
United States v. Rumsavich, 313 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2002) (considerations for variance in fraud cases)
United States v. Parolin, 239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001) (guideline adjustments in sophisticated fraud schemes)
United States v. Harris, 38 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasizes factors for variance in financial crime cases)
United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness presumptions in certain above-range sentences)
United States v. Angle, 598 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review and variance standards)
United States v. Brown, 610 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court's reasonable variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))