United States v. Sonny Austin Ramdeo
682 F. App'x 751
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sonny Ramdeo, Promise Health Care payroll manager, created PayServ (a sham company) and diverted over $20 million in payroll-tax funds to his airline, EZ-Jet GT, by causing Promise to transfer tax payments to PayServ.
- Ramdeo pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering counts in a superseding indictment after multiple changes of counsel and a plea colloquy where he affirmed the plea was voluntary.
- After pleading guilty, Ramdeo sought to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective or coercive counsel; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found his testimony not credible, denying the motion.
- The presentence report calculated loss and recommended enhancements for sophisticated means and denial of acceptance of responsibility; the government sought an obstruction enhancement for alleged perjury/false statements.
- At sentencing the district court found the loss amount to be $21,442,173 (after reductions), imposed a two-level obstruction enhancement for perjured testimony, a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement, denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit, and sentenced Ramdeo to 240 months.
Issues
| Issue | Ramdeo's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion denying motion to withdraw guilty plea | Counsel failed to review discovery, pressured him, he lacked choice so plea was not voluntary | Plea colloquy and testimony showed knowing, voluntary plea and close assistance of competent counsel; credibility findings adverse to Ramdeo | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion (statements under oath and court credibility findings controlling) |
| Proper amount of restitution | Restitution should be reduced by tax abatements and consider inability to pay | MVRA mandates full restitution determined by court without considering defendant's economic circumstances; court already reduced loss by abatements | Amount affirmed; court properly applied MVRA and considered abatements in reductions |
| Applicability of obstruction-of-justice enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3C1.1) | Denied committing perjury regarding contract and testimony | Court found perjured testimony and intent to mislead at multiple hearings supporting enhancement | Enhancement affirmed; factual findings not clearly erroneous and Dunnigan standard satisfied |
| Applicability of sophisticated-means enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1) | Transfers were simple diversions, not sophisticated | Scheme used fictitious entity, multiple accounts, fake website/email, concealment—parties stipulated to enhancement | Enhancement affirmed; totality of scheme was sufficiently sophisticated |
| Whether acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (§3E1.1) was warranted | Guilty plea and letter demonstrate acceptance | Obstruction enhancement, receding from plea, and ambiguous post-plea conduct negate clear acceptance | Denial affirmed; district court’s finding entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and factors for plea-withdrawal motions)
- Buckles v. United States, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) (factors for evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (perjury at trial or proceedings supports obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Singh, 291 F.3d 756 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying Dunnigan and obstruction enhancement analysis)
- United States v. Feaster, 798 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 2015) (sophisticated-means analysis can consider the totality of the scheme)
- United States v. Carroll, 6 F.3d 737 (11th Cir. 1993) (acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is discretionary and tied to genuine remorse)