U.S. v. Patel

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 25-year term of incarceration, after defendant had pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud for his role in selling $179 million in fraudulent loans to investment advisor, even though it sentenced co-defendant to 10-year term of incarceration on single count of money laundering charge. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. did not consider need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between himself and co-defendant, Dist. Ct. found that defendant was more culpable than co-defendant, and defendant otherwise failed to explain how he was similarly situated to others who had been convicted for fraud or show that said individuals had attempted to flee jurisdiction while on bond as defendant had done. Fact that Dist. Ct. had failed to mention that it had considered all section 3553(a) factors when imposing sentence did not require new sentencing hearing, where Dist. Ct. gave adequate statement of reasons for imposing defendant’s sentence. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly note that defendant demonstrated lack of remorse by planning to become fugitive in Ecuador rather than facing consequences of his conduct in United States. Moreover, defendant failed to establish that instant, below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable when compared to sentence given to co-defendant, where co-defendant had not engaged in new fraudulent scheme while on bond and had not attempted to flee country.