Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant was jointly and severally liable with his co-defendants on $625,544 restitution order arising out of defendant’s guilty plea to bank fraud conspiracy charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. should have imposed on defendant smaller amount that was based only on losses to which defendant was directly accountable. Co-conspirators are held jointly and severally liable for all foreseeable losses within in scope of conspiracy, and defendant had pleaded guilty to instant conspiracy that spanned 13-month period of time and covered series of false misrepresentations. Moreover, record showed that defendant played role in promoting scheme to victims knowing that entity lacked funds to purchase real estate used as collateral to secure loan, and that one victim testified that loan would not have been approved had entity not owned said real estate.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below guidelines, 48-month term of incarceration on wire fraud charge based in part on two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, where Dist. Ct. found that defendant had given false testimony to grand jury. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had failed to make adequate findings necessary for finding of perjury, govt.’s sentencing memorandum gave five specific examples of defendant’s false testimony, and Dist. Ct.’s comments strongly suggested that it had adopted govt.’s position and implicitly found that defendant’s grand jury testimony was false. Moreover, Dist. Ct. adopted presentence report that identified several false grand jury statements and observed that defendant had willfully obstructed administration of justice when testifying. Fact that defendant was not successful in deceiving grand jury was irrelevant.