88 F.4th 1141
5th Cir.2023Background
- Adam Joseph Schultz pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud for a scheme involving the fraudulent acquisition of vehicles using stolen credentials, causing intended losses of $766,249.
- Schultz, along with others, used the dark web to obtain dealership logins, purchased vehicles online, and then used forged documents to retrieve them.
- He received a 120-month sentence, calculated using enhancements for loss amount, leadership role, use of sophisticated means, and obstruction of justice, minus acceptance of responsibility.
- Schultz appealed, arguing the sentencing court misclassified a prior crime as criminal history rather than relevant conduct, and failed to apply an offense level reduction for a partially completed offense.
- There was a conflict between the written and orally pronounced judgments as to whether the federal sentence would run concurrently or consecutively with certain state sentences.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing decisions but remanded for clarification to ensure the written judgment matched the oral pronouncement regarding concurrency of sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Schultz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of April 2021 offense as criminal history | Should be considered relevant conduct, not criminal history | Was not sufficiently similar/regular to charged offense to be relevant conduct | Court sided with Gov't; proper as criminal history |
| Offense level reduction for partially completed offense | Entitled to reduction since not all vehicles were physically obtained | No reduction because all crime elements completed; failure due to law enforcement | No reduction; elements of charged crime were completed |
| Discrepancy between oral and written sentencing pronouncement | Sentence should run concurrent with state sentences as orally stated | N/A | Remanded to district court to conform written to oral |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanchez-Rodriguez, 830 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2016) (review standard for sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Lindsey, 969 F.3d 136 (5th Cir. 2020) (defining factors for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussing assessment of similarity and regularity for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001) (oral pronouncement controls in event of sentencing conflict)