United States v. Sedore

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Sedore

175 F. App'x 714

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2006

Docket05-1028

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 F. App'x 714 (United States v. Sedore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Sedore, 175 F. App'x 714 (6th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Michael Sedore appeals his sentence for identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and defrauding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. We vacate the sentence and remand the case for re-sentencing under the now-advisory provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We also provide guidance regarding the application of certain Guidelines provisions Sedore challenges with this appeal.

First, in determining whether Sedore abused a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, the district court may reevaluate whether Sedore occupied a position of trust, reassessing who qualifies as a victim within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt n. 1—the IRS and/or the individuals whose personal information Sedore used for his scheme. See United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1160 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that a “position of trust must be found in relation to the victim of the offense” and concluding that, although the government was the victim of the defendant’s false tax-return filings, the defendant did not occupy a position of trust with the government).

Second, the district court may reexamine its decision to enhance Sedore’s sentence for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 by determining whether Sedore acted “with knowledge that he ... [was] the subject of an investigation or *715 with the correct belief that an investigation [of him] [was] probably underway.” United States v. Brown, 237 F.3d 625, 628 (6th Cir.2001) (internal quotations omitted); accord United States v. Baggett, 342 F.3d 536, 541 (6th Cir.2003) (“[A] defendant who engages in obstructive conduct prior to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense is not subject to the enhancement.”).

The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for re-sentencing.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul Michael Sedore appeals his sentence for identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and defrauding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. We vacate the sentence and remand the case for re-sentencing under the now-advisory provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We also provide guidance regarding the application of certain Guidelines provisions Sedore challenges with this appeal.

First, in determining whether Sedore abused a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, the district court may reevaluate whether Sedore occupied a position of trust, reassessing who qualifies as a victim within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt n. 1—the IRS and/or the individuals whose personal information Sedore used for his scheme. See United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150, 1160 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that a “position of trust must be found in relation to the victim of the offense” and concluding that, although the government was the victim of the defendant’s false tax-return filings, the defendant did not occupy a position of trust with the government).

Second, the district court may reexamine its decision to enhance Sedore’s sentence for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 by determining whether Sedore acted “with knowledge that he ... [was] the subject of an investigation or *715 with the correct belief that an investigation [of him] [was] probably underway.” United States v. Brown, 237 F.3d 625, 628 (6th Cir.2001) (internal quotations omitted); accord United States v. Baggett, 342 F.3d 536, 541 (6th Cir.2003) (“[A] defendant who engages in obstructive conduct prior to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense is not subject to the enhancement.”).

The sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for re-sentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. App'x 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sedore-ca6-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack