OPPT (One Person's Public Trial) - Tucci-Jarraf

[Jeffrey]

The prosecutions logic makes perfect sense to me. She used her credentials as a former attorney to cajole Randy and thousands of others into doing the TDA thing and she also used it to try to pressure Whitney bank and the RV dealership to not reverse the RV sale.

How much effect does a level two enhancement have?

[Gregg]

Not to change the subject, but maybe we should reset the pool to how many months she's gonna get.

Its obvious she's not going to be heading for the hills for about 4 years, anyways. Randy, though, does have a full towards his sentence already served!

[Athis]

My memory is that Heather did present herself as an attorney during the call with the dealership
I would guess that is what the prosecutor is referring to
Or not?

[Athis]

Incredible how Heather persists in her bizarre filings
you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result
Even some of the IUV faithfull are losing faith in Heather's legal omniscience and omnipotence
Will BZ deny her?

[Jeffrey]

My memory is that Heather did present herself as an attorney during the call with the dealership
I would guess that is what the prosecutor is referring to
Or not?

Either that or calling herself Randy's attorney in the e-mails she wrote to Whitney Bank.

[Resume]

Incredible how Heather persists in her bizarre filings
you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result
Even some of the IUV faithfull are losing faith in Heather's legal omniscience and omnipotence
Will BZ deny her?

I'm pretty sure the commenter Bill T. is having BZ on.

[Resume]

Not to change the subject, but maybe we should reset the pool to how many months she's gonna get.

Its obvious she's not going to be heading for the hills for about 4 years, anyways. Randy, though, does have a full towards his sentence already served!

Heather gets 4 years, minus time served.

Randy gets 8, minus time served.

Appropriate or not, I think that's what's going to happen. But don't go by me. I pick the losingest horses and the longest grocery lines.

[Athis]

Incredible how Heather persists in her bizarre filings
you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result
Even some of the IUV faithfull are losing faith in Heather's legal omniscience and omnipotence
Will BZ deny her?

I'm pretty sure the commenter Bill T. is having BZ on.

I read the comment more carefully and I think you may be right Resume
Thanks

[Gregg]

Not to change the subject, but maybe we should reset the pool to how many months she's gonna get.

Its obvious she's not going to be heading for the hills for about 4 years, anyways. Randy, though, does have a full towards his sentence already served!

Heather gets 4 years, minus time served.

Randy gets 8, minus time served.

Appropriate or not, I think that's what's going to happen. But don't go by me. I pick the losingest horses and the longest grocery lines.

I don't know anything about sentencing guidelines, but I think someone who does pointed out upthread that Heather, having been convicted of the higher dollar amount in the conspiracy charge is liable for a longer sentence, even though she was only convicted on one count as opposed to all the counts Randy got convicted of. Further, although Randy is going to get 7 or however many sentences for the multiple charges, they are more than likely going to be served concurrently, and by whatever logic applies, he should get a shorter sentence overall, plus, as I said, he's already done a year of his time. He might be out in as little as 3 years or so.

I hate it, but apparently them's the rules.

[Resume]

Isn't the concurrent or consecutive at the discretion of the judge?

[Gregg]

It was on Fogbow, not here. From MikeDunsford

Sentencing guidelines:

tl:dr - my first guess might have been slightly low. I'm now going to say that both are looking at 5-8 years.


This is a rough guestimate only. The guidelines are complex, and I don't have 100% of the information needed. Also, many factors are either subjective, beyond my ability to estimate, or both. (For example, does this scheme get the 2-level adjustment for 'sophisticated' money laundering? My guess is no, but...)

Here's the link to the manual, for anyone interested. https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines

Randy:
His counts get bundled, and the guideline sentence gets based on the cumulative total of the harm. Which I believe is just under 1.5 million.
He starts with a Base 7 (the max on the bank fraud charge is over 20 years). Add 14 for cumulative harm between 500,000 and 1,500,000. Add 2 for over a million in gross proceeds from a financial institution. The resulting total is still less than 24, so increase to 24. Plus 2 for money laundering under 18 USC 1956 = 26.

Possible non-history adjustments: None strike me as clearly applicable.

Likely criminal history - probably either cat I or II.

Range - if his history category is I, 63-78 months; if it's II, 70-87 months.


Heather:
Money laundering - given the conspiracy, I think she starts from the same base level as Randy (the level for the underlying offense). So that should be level 24, and gets the +2 for money laundering. I think there's a decent case to be made that she should get another +2 as the leader.

Same as Randy without a leader adjustment. With the adjustment, range is 78-97 months.


Edit: ETA - If the amount of the cumulative harm goes up by the amount of the RV purchase (I don't think it should, because that would be similar to stealing the same money twice), the total number of points goes up by 1. That would take Randy to a possible range of 70-97 and Shiela to 70-121.

[Jeffrey]

Damn, Mike even predicted the +2 leader enhancement.

[ArthurWankspittle]

What happened to the argument that it was $31m attempted not the actual $1.5m moved around? Also I'm going for 4 years for Touchy-Giraffe and lots of concurrents for Randy with an upper limit of 6 years.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Will BZ deny her?

Three times before cock-crow.

[wserra]

She used her credentials as a former attorney to cajole Randy and thousands of others into doing the TDA thing

Proof? AFAIK, Beane never said that, no one else said it on Beane's behalf, the PSR doesn't say that, and "thousands of others" aren't part of the charge. Maybe I'm wrong about Beane. So prove it.

and she also used it to try to pressure Whitney bank and the RV dealership to not reverse the RV sale.

Guidelines §3B1.3 prescribes a two-level enhancement for a defendant who "used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense". I wrote above that, after the jig was up, she tried to convince the dealership and Whitney Bank that all was kosher. Neither believed her, because USAA Bank had already blown the whistle. So how did she "significantly facilitate the commission or concealment of the offense"?

How much effect does a level two enhancement have?

At criminal history category I, the difference between 41-51 months and 51-63 months.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Will BZ deny her?

Three times before cock-crow.

For $30m in Silver CDs?

[wserra]

Isn't the concurrent or consecutive at the discretion of the judge?

Yes, in the same sense that much else about the Guidelines is. It is overwhelmingly likely that Beane will get concurrent sentences within the Guideline range.

[wserra]

Damn, Mike even predicted the +2 leader enhancement.

Neither the PSR nor the Govt suggests the two-level leadership role enhancement per Guidelines §3B1.1(c). The Govt objects to Probation Dept not applying the two-level special skill enhancement per Guidelines §3B1.3. Under the right circumstances, a particular defendant may receive both, one or the other, or neither.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Do 'Guidelines' in this context mean what they mean in normal life, something indicative but not mandatory, or is a special way of saying mandatory?

Because if it means indicative, the outcome is always absurd. Giving a precise value to a huge number of intangibles does not mean that on adding them up, it gives you a precise value, it just leaves things with an illusion of precision.

I concede there should be some rule to ensure people do not get life imprisonment for Mopery or time served for burning down orphanages, but I think sentencing should be a matter for the Judge, who I fondly imagine can be trusted to get it right enough most of the time without the College of Arcane Mathematics getting involved when they are so much better employed working out angels per square pinhead ratios.

[wserra]

When the Guidelines were first adopted in the mid-80's, they were mandatory. Sentencing judges could only "depart" (the actual term for it) in specific, fairly well-defined circumstances (the chief one, of course, being ratting out your crimeys). Then the Supreme Court held that mandatory application of various Guideline provisions violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Since Booker the Guidelines have been, well, guidelines. But they are very widely followed.