United States v. Sean Premock
20-2789
| 3rd Cir. | Sep 16, 2021Background
- Sean Premock pled guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and investment-advisor fraud for operating a Ponzi-like scheme from ~2009–2016 that victimized mostly elderly clients and involved approximately $1.3 million in client funds.
- Premock commingled client funds, misappropriated money for personal expenses, issued false account statements, used a false alias ("Ethan Premock"), and failed to disclose loss of licensure.
- He engaged in extensive pre‑ and post‑indictment conduct the district court found deceptive: filing repeated pro se motions while represented, making contradictory statements about his assets to avoid bail conditions, seeking release on invalid collateral, and professing innocence after pleading guilty.
- The parties had stipulated to several guideline adjustments (loss amount, enhancements for holding out as an adviser and victim vulnerability, and a 3‑level acceptance deduction), but Premock’s courtroom denials prompted the court and government to reassess acceptance of responsibility.
- The district court imposed an upward variance to a 120‑month sentence (23 months above the Guidelines recommendation), ordered >$1 million restitution, and premised the variance on the seriousness of the scheme and Premock’s character and conduct; Premock appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Premock's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 120‑month sentence (23‑month upward variance) was substantively unreasonable | The upward variance was an abuse of discretion and substantively unreasonable | The sentence is reasonable; the court considered §3553(a) factors and the defendant’s conduct | Affirmed — sentence reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
| Whether the district court failed to consider mitigating evidence (family testimony and expert about prior Carr‑Miller/DLG frauds) | Court ignored or undervalued mitigating testimony and expert evidence explaining motive | Court considered the evidence but found it irrelevant or not credible and thus not mitigating of culpability | Affirmed — district court properly weighed and rejected the evidence as insufficiently mitigating |
| Whether the sentence created an unjustified sentencing disparity under §3553(a)(6) | Cited other fraud cases with lower sentences to show disparity | Those cases differ materially; Premock’s ongoing deceitful conduct and aggravating facts justify a higher sentence | Affirmed — no impermissible disparity shown given differing facts and aggravating conduct |
| Whether the court improperly relied on premotion and pretrial conduct (frivolous filings, misrepresentations, flight risk) to increase sentence | Such procedural conduct should not justify an enhanced sentence | Defendant’s pre‑ and post‑indictment deceit and obstruction of proceedings reflect his history/character and are relevant to §3553(a) | Affirmed — the court permissibly considered that conduct when imposing a variance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences under abuse‑of‑discretion and §3553(a))
- United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007) (defendant must do more than assert court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors)
- United States v. Duliga, 204 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2000) (illustrative prior sentencing for fraud used for comparison; factual differences can justify different outcomes)
- United States v. Boyle, [citation="723 Fed. App'x 111"] (3d Cir. 2018) (another comparative fraud sentence cited by defendant; court noted factual distinctions)