United States v. Sirtaj "Tosh" Mathauda
680 F. App'x 805
11th Cir.2017Background
- Mathauda was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, nine counts of mail fraud, and two counts of wire fraud; prior appellate reversal required resentencing.
- The fraud scheme caused approximately $3.5 million in losses to numerous victims.
- At resentencing the district court imposed a 200-month prison term (within Guidelines and below the statutory maximum).
- Mathauda argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable due to his age, poor health, proximity of prior DUI convictions, ineligibility for prison programs, and potential deportability.
- Mathauda also sought to proceed pro se before resentencing; the district court denied his request without holding an additional Faretta hearing, finding he had vacillated about self-representation.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and the denial of an additional Faretta hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 200-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Mathauda: age, poor health, prior DUIs proximity, noncitizen concerns warrant shorter sentence | Government: sentence within Guidelines, below statutory max, justified by $3.5M loss and criminal history | Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable |
| Whether the district court erred by denying a renewed Faretta hearing | Mathauda: made a clear unequivocal request to proceed pro se before resentencing | Government: Mathauda repeatedly vacillated; prior Faretta hearings occurred; court provided opportunity to speak | Affirmed — no error; waiver by vacillation and rights vindicated at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 772 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (standard: abuse-of-discretion for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (review of sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (burden on appellant to show unreasonableness)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (§ 3553(a) factors evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir.) (when a sentence may be substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633 (11th Cir.) (expectation of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627 (11th Cir.) (weighing seriousness of offense and criminal history)
- Gill v. Mecusker, 633 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.) (standards for invoking Faretta rights)
- United States v. Garey, 540 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (examples of clear invocation of Faretta)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for vindication of pro se rights in non-jury proceedings)
- Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (Sup. Ct.) (presumption against waiver of constitutional rights)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant’s right to self-representation)