United States v. Valente
688 F. App'x 76
2d Cir.2017Background
- Scott Valente pleaded guilty to securities fraud, mail fraud, and obstructing internal revenue laws and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal he challenged several sentencing calculations in the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Disputed items included (1) counting multiple DWAI (driving while ability impaired) convictions in criminal history, (2) scoring a conviction for using a vehicle without an interlock device, (3) scoring a recidivist DWAI where a jail term had not been enforced, (4) the loss amount, (5) denial of a downward departure for medical/mental conditions, (6) a two-level obstruction enhancement, and (7) a sophisticated-means enhancement.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the DWAI scoring under Potes-Castillo for certain convictions, upheld loss amount, obstruction, and sophisticated-means enhancements, but found unresolved factual or analytical errors as to the interlock offense and the recidivist DWAI sentence.
- The case was remanded for resentencing to allow the district court to address the interlock scoring and to resolve the factual status of the state DWAI sentence (whether it was effectively suspended).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certain DWAI convictions should count toward criminal history | Government: apply Potes-Castillo and assess points | Valente: Potes-Castillo superseded by Sentencing Commission amendment; points improper | Court: affirmed district court; found Potes-Castillo analysis applied and points proper |
| Whether conviction for using vehicle without interlock warrants a criminal history point | Government/PSR: count one point | Valente: offense may not be categorically more serious than §4A1.2(c) offenses | Court: remanded — district court failed to analyze categorical seriousness; needs to reconsider |
| Whether recidivist DWAI (jail imposed but not enforced) scores two points or one under §4A1.2(a)(3) | Valente: effectively suspended; only one point | Government: sentence not suspended; two points proper | Court: remanded — factual status unresolved; district court must determine whether sentence was suspended/enforced |
| Validity of obstruction enhancement for SEC civil investigation | Government: obstruction aimed to thwart later criminal probe — enhancement proper | Valente: obstruction of civil SEC probe not covered by §3C1.1 for instant offense | Court: affirmed — district court’s finding that conduct was purposefully calculated to thwart later criminal investigation was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Potes-Castillo, 638 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2011) (directs modified categorical analysis for DWAI scoring under §4A1.2)
- United States v. DeJesus-Concepcion, 607 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (related guidance on prior-offense scoring)
- United States v. Morales, 239 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2000) (requires focusing on defendant’s particular conduct when comparing prior offenses)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Sentencing Commission interpretations given controlling weight unless plainly erroneous)
- United States v. Fiore, 381 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2004) (standards of review for guideline interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Robinson, 799 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2015) (district court’s decision not to depart is generally unreviewable)