United States v. Wright
642 F.3d 148
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Wright appeals a 20-month sentence for possessing and conspiring to possess altered currency.
- District Court applied an 8-level enhancement under USSG § 2B5.1(b)(1) based on intended loss ($100,000).
- Wright argued the enhancement must base only on face value of counterfeit items ($400).
- District Court overruled the objection, treating the case as a novel scenario focusing on intended loss.
- Guideline calculation started with base level 9 under § 2B5.1; total offense level reached 17; CR Iii.
- Court then varied downward after 3553(a) factors and imposed 20 months; Wright challenged procedural sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2B5.1(b)(1) permits an enhancement based on intended loss. | Wright argues enhancement depends on face value only. | Wright contends the district court could use departure/variance but not an improper step-one enhancement. | Enhancement based on intended loss was improper; remand for resentencing. |
| Whether the district court properly treated the enhancement as a step-one error or a departure/variance. | Record shows attack on step-one enhancement, not a departure. | Government contends it was a permissible departure for unidentified circumstances. | No proper step-two/three basis; procedural error requires remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (lays out three-step sentencing framework and review standards)
- United States v. Shedrick, 493 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2007) (discusses steps and 3553(a) considerations)
- United States v. Ali, 508 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2007) (procedural error and departure considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (emphasizes procedural fairness and § 3553(a) factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (guidance on procedural reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Smalley, 517 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2008) (harmlessness of error in sentencing contexts)
- United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (importance of procedural and substantive alignment in sentencing)