United States v. Fumo, 09-3388
| Decision Date | 23 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-3388,No. 09-3389,No. 09-3390,09-3388,09-3389,09-3390 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENT J. FUMO, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. RUTH ARNAO, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
PRECEDENTIAL
Before: FUENTES, GARTH, NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Zane David Memeger, Esq.
Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. [ARGUED]
John J. Pease, Esq.
Office of United States Attorney
Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Samuel J. Buffone, Esq. [ARGUED]
BuckleySandler LLP
Peter Goldberger, Esq.
50 Rittenhouse Place
Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Fumo
Patrick J. Egan, Esq. [ARGUED]
Eric E. Reed, Esq.
Fox Rothschild LLP
Counsel for Appellee Arnao
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion filed on August 23, 2011 shall be amended. A new footnote #12 will be inserted on page number 59 at the end of the second paragraph under Section A. The text of the footnote is as follows:
Arnao also joins in Fumo's arguments opposing the Government's contention that the District Court erred in failing to apply a 2-level sophisticated means enhancement with regard to the Citizens Alliance fraud. Because we find that the District Court abused its discretion in ruling that theCitizens Alliance fraud did not involve the use of sophisticated means, the same finding of abuse of discretion applies in Arnao's sentence. Accordingly, the 2b1.1(b)(9)(C) additional enhancement of 2 levels applies in the Guideline calculation for Arnao as well as Fumo.
The numbering of all subsequent footnotes shall be adjusted accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion shall be amended to delete the next to last sentence in Section A on page 59 that reads "Because these revised calculations create a loss that is greater than $1,000,000, Arnao will receive a 2-level increase in her base offense level under § 2B1.1(b)(I)" , and replace it with the following sentence:
"Because these revised calculations create a loss that is greater than $1 million, Arnao will receive an additional 2-level increase (thereby totaling 16 levels) in her base offense level under §2B1.1(b)(I)."
Circuit Judge tmk/cc: Peter Goldberger, Esq.
Dennis J. Cogan, Esq.
Samuel J. Buffone, Esq.
Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq.
John J. Pease, III, Esq.
Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., Esq.
Stephen F. Funk, Esq.
Patrick J. Egan, Esq.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Xiang v. United States, Civ. Act. No. 15-257-LPS
...of the property unlawfully taken [or] copied." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(C); see also United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 310 (3d Cir. 2011). In addition, Movant mischaracterizes the pricing data by describing all of it as "MSRP" [manufacturers suggested retail pr......
-
United States v. Curran, 2:09–cr–325–1.
...the court calculates the applicable Guidelines range, which includes the application of any sentencing enhancements.” United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 308 (3d Cir.2011) ( quoting United States v. Wright, 642 F.3d 148, 152 (3d Cir.2011)). At step two, the court considers any motions for ......
-
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., C 10–03561 WHA
...about the case. E.g., United States v. Feng Li, 630 Fed.Appx. 29, 33–34, 2015 WL 7005595, at *3 (2d Cir.2015) ; United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d. Cir.2011) ; Dimas–Martinez v. State, 2011 Ark. 515, 385 S.W.3d 238 (2011). Several other decisions address whether a party waives argument......
-
United States v. King, Criminal Action No. 15-140-01 (RMC)
...the Court determined that a variance was appropriate. Tr. 7/29/2016 at 19 (Court: "I really have to vary"). See also United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 317 (3d Cir.2011) (a "departure" diverges from the originally calculated sentencing range for reasons contained in the Guidelines themsel......