US v. Powers: Powers owned a company that advertised itself as providing a “software application to facilitate communications for businesses and other users.” Eventually, he began lying to investors about the company’s revenue, total worth, and the number of high-profile of clients it had and “fueled his operation with lies for a decade.” For all this he was charged, and eventually convicted at trial, of multiple counts including wire fraud and mail fraud. The district court sentenced him to 151 months in prison, the bottom of the applicable advisory Guideline range.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Powers’ convictions and sentence, which he challenged on two grounds. First, Powers argued that the district court erred by denying his pretrial motions to dismiss the fraud counts because they failed to adequately allege venue in the Eastern District of Virginia. Noting that venue is proper in fraud counts “in any district associated with misuse of the mail or wires in furtherance of the scheme,” the court concluded that because the indictment clearly listed the Eastern District of Virginia as the location of Power’s illegal acts it was sufficient. The “indictment was not required to allege venue with greater specificity.” Powers’ second argument was that the district court did not sufficiently explain why it rejected his argument for a downward variance. In particular, Powers had argued (somewhat in line with arguments regarding child pornography Guidelines) that the fraud Guidelines should be rejected because “they lack an empirical basis, resulting in sentences that do not reflect culpability and are unfairly cumulative.” The court disagreed, holding that the “district court here rejected the core premise of Powers’ argument” both at sentencing and in its (39-page) written opinion, emphasizing the scope of the fraud and the harm caused. In addition, the district court never indicated that it lacked the discretion to disregard the advice of the Guidelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment