United States v. John W. Ploetz

16 F. App'x 527
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 2001
Docket00-2191
StatusUnpublished

This text of 16 F. App'x 527 (United States v. John W. Ploetz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. John W. Ploetz, 16 F. App'x 527 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John William Ploetz pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. At sentencing, the district court 1 imposed enhancements based upon the value of funds, Ploetz’s knowledge that the funds were proceeds of an illegal activity, and Ploetz’s abuse of a position of trust; the court also granted Ploetz’s departure motion based upon his diminished mental capacity. The court sentenced Ploetz to concurrent terms of 24 months imprisonment and three years supervised release on each count, and ordered him to pay $203,097 in restitution. On appeal, Ploetz challenges each of the enhancements, the extent of the court’s departure, and the denial of his motion for departure based on post-offense rehabilitation; he also challenges the enhancements under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court did not err in imposing each enhancement, for the reasons stated by the district court; further, we do not review the extent of the departure granted or the discretionary decision to deny a departure for post-offense rehabilitation. See United States v.. Dutcher, 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Correa, 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir.1999). We also reject Ploetz’s Apprendi challenge, as imposition of the enhancements did not result in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum authorized for his crimes. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th *528 Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 600, 148 L.Ed.2d 513 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
United States v. Jerry Gene Dutcher
8 F.3d 11 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Jesus Correa
167 F.3d 414 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Fabian Aguayo-Delgado
220 F.3d 926 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)
Fria Vazquez del Mercado v. United States
531 U.S. 1027 (Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F. App'x 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-w-ploetz-ca8-2001.