U.S. v. Picardi

Defendant waived claim on appeal that Dist. Ct. erred in imposing $100,000 fine as recommended by probation department, as part of his sentence on his embezzlement conviction. Defendant did not object to imposition of said fine at sentencing hearing, and, although defendant asserted that Dist. Ct. committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain basis of instant fine under circumstances where maximum Guidelines fine was $40,000, defendant waived any issue regarding imposition of fine, where record showed that defendant made strategic decision not to raise objection to said fine. Specifically, defendant’s counsel urged Dist. Ct. to impose fine rather than impose sentence of incarceration beyond three months that defendant had already served. Moreover, defendant’s counsel had twice indicated that he was aware of probation department’s recommended $100,000 fine and still suggested to Dist. Ct. to impose fine in lieu of additional prison time. Also, defendant could not complain that Dist. Ct. failed to adequately explain its decision to impose above-Guidelines fine when defendant’s counsel led Dist. Ct. to believe that he had no objection to said fine.