U.S. v. Ghuman

In prosecution on bank fraud and filing false tax return charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 66-month term of incarceration that was based, in part, on finding that defendant was not entitled to credit for acceptance of responsibility under section 3E1.1 of USSG, even though defendant had pleaded guilty to said charges. Record showed that defendant made no real acknowledgment of conduct that made him central figure in bank fraud scheme involving submission of loan applications containing false financial information, and defendant otherwise had falsely denied much of alleged misconduct at issue in charged bank fraud offense. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in imposing three-year term of supervised release on tax return charge, since statutory maximum term of supervised release for instant tax return charge is one year. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in refusing to offset $10.8 million restitution order by value of unsold real estate still held by victim-bank as result of bank fraud scheme, since: (1) there was no showing by defendant that bank had made decision to hold said property indefinitely as investment; and (2) instant restitution order is subject to modification in future if and when bank sells properties involved in bank fraud scheme.