Dist.Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 70-month term of incarceration on wire fraud charge, even though said sentence was higher than applicable 31-to-41-month Guideline range. Instant sentence was with Dist. Ct.’s broad discretion in imposing defendant‘s sentence, where: (1) defendant took advantage of 68 victims; (2) six victims provided testimony regarding tragic consequences of defendant taking their money based upon false promise of obtaining financing on their behalf; and (3) defendant showed no remorse for his actions and devised second fraudulent scheme after his indictment on instant offense. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that Dist. Ct. failed to adequately explain reasons for instant upward variance, since Dist. Ct. gave adequate explanation for why variance was appropriate under section 3553(a). Ct. also rejected defendant's contention that Dist. Ct. was required to give him advance notice of grounds on which it was considering upward variance.
