U.S. v,. Wood

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 144-month term of incarceration on wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud charges, even though applicable guideline range was 70 to 87 months and presentence report recommended 72-month term of incarceration. Instant charges arose out of scheme to defraud homeowners facing foreclosure by promising them to refinance or modify their mortgages, but then pocketing $400,000 of their mortgage payments for his own personal use and allowing their homes to go into foreclosure. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. committed procedural error by improperly comparing facts in instant case with facts in unrelated case, any error was harmless, where Dist. Ct.'s decision on sentencing did not depend on said comparison, since Dist. Ct.’s focus was almost exclusively on defendant’s individual characteristics that included perceived heartlessness of defendant’s actions, vulnerability of his victims, defendant’s relentless pursuit of his scheme, significance of damages beyond monetary loss and absence of mitigating explanation for h=defendant's behavior. Defendant also failed to show that information regarding other case was not accurate. Also, instant sentence was not substantively unreasonable, where: (1) Dist. Ct. gave adequate explanation for why it imposed sentence above applicable guideline range; and (2) defendant’s sentence turned on unique characteristics and nature of his crime. Mere fact that defendant gave more weight to his mitigation evidence than Dist. Ct. did not transform sentence into abuse of discretion.