United States v. Scott
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 582
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wayne C. Scott pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
- Scott ran two schemes (2007 and 2009) posing as corporate advertising managers to solicit investments.
- Investors were told campaigns were tested, safe, and guaranteed to double investments, but no campaigns existed.
- Scott defrauded over 250 investors and misappropriated at least $804,709 for personal use.
- In 2009, a coconspirator, Gabriel A. Brown, was charged but ultimately neither convicted nor sentenced; prosecutors dismissed charges against her.
- Scott received a 63-month sentence, the lowest end of the advisory Guideline range; he appeals the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3553(a)(6) allows considering a coconspirator’s non-conviction | Scott argues disparities with non-convicted coconspirator justify relief | Scott contends court may consider non-conviction to reduce sentence | No; no disparity among adjudicated defendants; district court did not err |
| Whether §3553(a) generally permits considering a coconspirator’s lack of conviction | Scott claims court should factor prosecutor’s non-charging into sentence | Scott argues sentencing should reflect lack of conviction as relevant under §3553(a) | Prosecutorial discretion preserved; court cannot base sentencing on non-charging absence |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable | Scott asserts inadequate explanation and failure to rule on non-frivolous arguments | Scott contends minimal reasoning and missed ruling require resentencing | District court provided adequate explanation; no procedural error; sentence reasonable |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under §3553(a) | Scott contends a more explicit articulation of factors was needed | Scott relies on §3553(a) factors to argue for a lower sentence | Sentence within advisory range and supported by record; reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2010) (review de novo of §3553(a) and (a)(6) issues)
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (prosecution discretion and lack of conviction considerations)
- United States v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparities and §3553(a) considerations)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (limits on reviewing prosecutorial discretion in sentencing context)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (broad, open-ended nature of §3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (requirement to explain sentence; standard for reasonableness review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court 1985) (prosecutorial discretion and lack of judicial review of charging decisions)
- United States v. Woods, 576 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (separation of powers and prosecutorial discretion)