U.S. v. Schmitz

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 84-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had failed to address his claim that applicable sentencing guideline had inflated to level that was unreasonable for someone with his age (60) and health conditions. Dist. Ct. was not required to address said argument where defendant’s argument did not concern his own characteristics and circumstances, but rather pertained to challenge to validity of guideline itself. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s health concerns regarding his high blood pressure and cholesterol were not out of ordinary for person of his age, and that circumstances surrounding defendant’s scheme, that involved taking $3.1 million from bankers and lenders, as well as his history of fraud, supported imposition of instant sentence.