710 Fed.Appx. 50 (2nd Cir. 2018), 17-655-cr, United States v. Eisenhart

Docket Nº:17-655-cr
Citation:710 Fed.Appx. 50
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David EISENHART, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:FOR APPELLEE: Gregory L. Waples, Paul J. Van de Graaf, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Eugenia A. P. Cowles, Acting United States Attorney, District of Vermont, Burlington, VT. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Mark A. Kaplan, Kaplan and Kaplan, Burlington, VT.
Judge Panel:PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 31, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 50

710 Fed.Appx. 50 (2nd Cir. 2018)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.

David EISENHART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-655-cr

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

January 31, 2018

Editorial Note:

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the February 23, 2017 judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

FOR APPELLEE: Gregory L. Waples, Paul J. Van de Graaf, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Eugenia A. P. Cowles, Acting United States Attorney, District of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Mark A. Kaplan, Kaplan and Kaplan, Burlington, VT.

PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, José A. Cabranes, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant David Eisenhart appeals from a February 23, 2017 judgment following his plea of guilty to bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. When calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, the District Court included, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, a two-level increase for abuse of a position of private trust. The District Court then sentenced Eisenhart to, inter alia, a year and a day in prison. On appeal, Eisenhart argues that (1) the two-level increase for abuse of a position of trust was procedurally unreasonable, and (2) the two-level increase resulted in a substantively unreasonable prison sentence. We conclude that his arguments are without merit and affirm.

BACKGROUND1

The parties agree that between October 2013 and June 2015 Eisenhart perpetrated

Page 51

two criminal schemes.2 The schemes are as follows:

Cadillac Escalade Scheme. In October 2013, Eisenhart purchased a 2011 Cadillac Escalade with financing from a credit union. Two months later, he fraudulently refinanced the loan by lying to another credit union about the purchase price of the vehicle, and received $58,935.11. Then in April 2015, while still owing over $50,000...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP