US v. Lawson: Lawson was part of a “telemarketing sweepstakes scheme,” run out of Jamaica in which callers to primarily elderly people (70% of the 179 victims were over age 65) would claim they had won a prize, but could only collect after paying fees and other assorted costs. Lawson (and his mother) were in South Carolina where they collected various forms of payment from the various victims. Lawson pleaded guilty to numerous counts, including conspiracy and fraud. At sentencing the district court applied enhancements based on a total loss of $720,000 and because the offense involved vulnerable victims. It denied Lawson a reduction for a minor role. Ultimately, Lawson was sentenced to 78 months in prison, the top of the applicable Guideline range.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lawson’s sentence. In doing so, the court expanded on the nature of review for clear error, centering the district court’s better institutional tools for making factual determinations (“district courts simply have a better yardstick than we do”). Lawson could not show clear error in the calculation of his Guideline range. As to the vulnerable victim enhancement, the court concluded that while it cannot be based solely on the age of victims, age is nonetheless a proper factor to consider when determining whether victims are particularly vulnerable in any particular case. As to the minor role enhancement, the court held that Lawson’s critical role in the scheme was a legitimate factor in determining whether to grant the reduction, as was a record that showed Lawson was, at least, an “average” participant in the scheme. Finally, as to the loss calculation, the court rejected Lawson’s argument that actual and intended loss were “categorically different and mutually exclusive” and concluded that the district court did not err by considering both.
No comments:
Post a Comment