United States v. Burnell

367 F. Supp. 3d 12
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 2019
Docket18-CR-315
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 367 F. Supp. 3d 12 (United States v. Burnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Burnell, 367 F. Supp. 3d 12 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge

Table of Contents

I. Introduction...13

II. Offense...13

III. Guilty Plea...14

IV. Sentencing Hearing...14

V. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range...14

VI. Law...15

VII. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Considerations...15

VIII. Sentence...16

IX. Conclusion...16

I. Introduction

Paul Burnell ("Burnell" or "Defendant") pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1343 ; conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He, together with others, devised a scheme to defraud export companies purchasing scrap metal for shipment to foreign customers. Compassionate considerations outweigh the need for incarceration in this serious commercial crime.

II. Offense

From 2015 to 2018, Defendant was self-employed as a consultant and trader in the scrap metal business through Shore Consultants & Trading, LLC. Pre-Sentence Report ("PSR") ¶¶ 54-55. Scrap metal from the United States is sent abroad in shipping containers. PSR ¶ 3. Foreign customers pay a price per unit of weight for scrap metal, separated and charged for by type. Id.

During Burnell's time with Shore Consultants, he participated in two frauds. In 2016, the conspirators sold to overseas customers shipping containers of scrap metal that had been padded with cheaper metal. PSR ¶ 4. More valuable scrap metal was placed on top of the cheaper, filler metal to make it appear that the entire container was filled with the valuable scrap metal. Id. Defendant provided places to load the shipping containers. PSR ¶ 6.

In late 2017 and early 2018, Burnell and a conspirator contracted with a customer to ship $ 100,000 worth of valuable harness wire to China. PSR ¶ 9. In early 2018, instead of filling a shipping container with harness wire, Burnell, the conspirator, and a third person filled it with cheap rotors, adding a layer of harness wire inside so it appeared that the container was filled with *14the more valuable scrap. PSR ¶ 12. Defendant was arrested as he and his co-conspirators were waiting for a truck to move the container. Id. This was a "sting" operation. PSR ¶ 13.

III. Guilty Plea

Defendant pled guilty on July 10, 2018, to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 1349 and 1343. Minute Entry, July 10, 2018, ECF No. 25; PSR ¶ 1. He is being prosecuted for the 2017-2018 fraud only, though the 2016 fraud is relevant to the sentence.

IV. Sentencing Hearing

The court held sentencing hearings on January 30, 2019 and January 31, 2019. See Minute Entry, Jan. 30, 2019, ECF No. 35; Minute Entry, Jan. 31, 2019, ECF No. 36. A guilty plea was accepted by the magistrate judge and again by the court. Hr'g Tr. 11:8-12:1, Jan. 30, 2019.

The proceedings were videotaped to develop a record of courtroom atmosphere. See In re Sentencing , 219 F.R.D. 262, 264-65 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ("The sentencing hearing normally requires that the defendant be observed for credibility, mental astuteness, physical characteristics, ability to withstand the rigors and dangers of incarceration, and ... myriad other relevant factors. In many instances, it is necessary to observe the employer's and familial ties to the defendant. A judge applies mental impressions of many tangible and intangible factors when imposing a sentence."). At the hearing, Burnell had the support of more than a half-dozen family members and friends, including his wife, his mother, and his sister. His role as an emotional and financial support to his family was evident in observing the attendees, as was the commitment his family members and friends have to supporting him following his conviction.

V. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range

The base offense level for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, is seven. U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(a)(1). This is subject to an increase of eight because the loss involved in this offense was greater than $ 95,000. Id. § 2B 1.1(b)(1). The offense level was reduced by two points for acceptance of responsibility. PSR ¶ 25. The total adjusted offense level is 13. Hr'g Tr. 27:11, Jan. 31, 2019.

The parties disagreed about the loss amount. The government contended that the loss amount was more than $ 95,000, because the defendant intended to ship two containers of harness wire each with a value of approximately $ 50,000. See Sent'g Mem. 6, Jan. 28, 2019, ECF No. 33. This conclusion was supported by Burnell's own statements on audio recordings. Id. at 6-7. Defendant contended that the loss amount was less than $ 95,000 because the cost of materials shipped must be taken into account when calculating the loss and, even if not taken into account, the defrauded recipients of the containers received some material of value. Sent'g Mem. Behalf Paul Burnell 13. The government's contention was accurate. The relevant loss is the "intended loss"-the pecuniary harm that the offense would have inflicted. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 n.3(A)(ii). In addition to the approximately $ 100,000 Burnell and his co-conspirator would receive had the scheme been successful, there is also the pecuniary loss that would have been incurred to customs officials and the recipients of the products as a result of having to sort through the padding material. See Hr'g Tr. 24:6-19; 25:23-25, Jan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
367 F. Supp. 3d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-burnell-nyed-2019.