Maria De La Luz Maggi? Top 6 New Answer Updated

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria D. MAGGI, likewise called Maria D. Wolleter, likewise called Maria L. Maggi, likewise called Maria M. Lanier, likewise called Maria “Lucca” Lanier, Defendant-Appellant

No 93-2106.

Deced: January 03, 1995

Before LAY, * EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE,Circuit Judges
Michael C. Carr,Asst U.S.Atty (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Benton, IL, for plaintiff-appellee. Mark D. De Bofsky (argued), Alissa Camp, Debofsky & & Debofsky, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellant.

Before LAY, * EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE,Circuit Judges Michael C. Carr,Asst U.S.Atty (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Benton, IL, for plaintiff-appellee. Mark D. De Bofsky (argued), Alissa Camp, Debofsky & & Debofsky, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellant.

Maria De La Luz Maggi pled guilty to a four-count indictment charging her with one count of conspiracy to cash wash in infraction of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 371, and 1956( a)( 1 )( B)( i), and 3 counts of blockage of justice in infraction of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. She was sentenced under the Federal Sentencing Guelines (“Guelines”) to sixty months jail time on the conspiracy count and forty-eight months on the blockage of justice counts, leading to an overall jail time of 108 months.

On appeal, Maggi challenges the district court’s (1) addition of the blockage of justice counts in her sentence;( 2) two-point improvement for blockage of justice;( 3) rejection to lower her sentence by factor of her small involvement;( 4) eight-level improvement due to the fact that the worth of funds surpassed $6,000,000; and, additionally (5) failure to subtract 3 levels due to the fact that she was founded guilty just of an uncompleted conspiracy of cash laundering. We remand for resentencing for the court to conser whether the conspiracy charged was uncompleted; otherwise, we verify the sentence and the district court’s application of the Guelines.

BACKGROUND

Maggi started a romantic relationship with Randy Thomas Lanier in the summer season of 1986. Lanier had actually been associated with a conspiracy to import and disperse cannabis given that 1978. Maggi rejects she understood this truth when their relationship started. During that duration, Lanier’s company apparently was accountable for importing from Columbia more than 600,000 pounds of cannabis to theUnited States Some of this cannabis was ultimately dispersed inIllinois Lanier was arraigned in the Southern District of Illinois in January 1987.

Thereafter, Lanier ended up being a fugitive and took a trip in the United States and abroad. Maggi accompanied Lanier at different times, consisting of 2 journeys toEurope Lanier had a variety of financial investments, bonds, and accounts inSwitzerland Lanier was lastly detained off the coast of Antigua on October 26, 1987 and apprehended without bond. Maggi existed when Lanier was detained.

While Lanier remained in prison waiting for trial, he set up various sees with his sibling, Bobby Lanier, different lawyers, and Maggi, and provided instructions on how to handle his properties and keep the federal government from discovering them. Lanier was founded guilty in October 1988 and was sentenced to life jail time on December 21 of that year. The jury likewise returned an unique decision of $60,000,000 versus Lanier and in favor of the United States.

Approximately one week after Lanier’s sentencing, Maggi leased a post workplace box in Hollywood, Flora, under her sis’s name. Maggi utilized this box to negotiate company with Lanier’s Swiss lawyers. She likewise consulted with Bobby Lanier two times, who provided her $200,000 and after that over $360,000 to pay lawyers’ charges for Randy Lanier’s codefendants, to offer to codefendant’s households and Lanier’s then existing spouse, and to move and save Lanier’s automobile collection. In November 1989, Maggi took a trip to Geneva, Switzerland, and attempted to perform company on behalf of Lanier with his lawyers and financial investment lenders. During this duration, Maggi h a variety of files at her sis’s home in Plantation,Flora Maggi wed Lanier on August 31, 1990 at Oxford Federal Correctional Institution in Wisconsin.

On November 27, 1991, a grand jury returned a 4 count indictment versusMaggi Count I charged her with conspiracy to dedicate cash laundering from 1986 through 1991, in infraction of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 371, and 1956( a)( 1 )( B)( i). Counts II-IV charged her with acts of blockage of justice in infraction of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The latter 3 counts charged that Maggi’s conduct from December 1988 through May 1991 blocked the federal grand jury examination in the Southern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Flora, Switzerland, and somewhere else.

On September 8, 1992, Maggi pled guilty to all 4 counts in lack of a plea arrangement. The court concluded the relevant Guelines’ offense level was thirty-one, producing a series of 108 to 135 months jail time. Thereafter, Maggi was sentenced to sixty months jail time for Count I, and forty-eight months for Counts II-IV, leading to an overall jail time regard to 108 months. Maggi challenges her sentence and the application of the Guelines.

I.

Maggi declares her cash laundering count consists of the aspects of blockage of justice. Thus, she argues, the successive sentences the court enforced wrongly penalized her twice for the exact same conduct. This argument is unpersuasive due to the fact that the Guelines particularly show for several counts connecting to the exact same conduct or damage.Section 3D1.2 of the Guelines addresses several, yet closely-related counts:

All counts including considerably the exact same damage will be organized together into a singleGroup Counts include considerably the exact same damage within the significance of this guideline:

.

( c)When among the counts embodies conduct that is dealt with as a particular offense quality in, or other change to, the gueline relevant to another of the counts.

Section 3D1.3( a) then shows that “[t]he offense level applicable to [such] a Group is the offense level ․ for the most serious of the counts comprising the group․”Section 3D1.5 advises courts to utilize this offense level to determine the overall penalty variety. Finally, area 5G1.2( d) directs courts to sentence offenders as follows:

If the sentence troubled the count bring the greatest statutory optimum is less than the overall penalty, then the sentence troubled several of the other counts will run consecutively, however just to the degree essential to produce a combined sentence equivalent to the overall penalty. In all other aspects sentences on all counts will run simultaneously, other than to the degree otherwise needed by law.( focus included).

The district court acknowledged the cash laundering count embodies aspects of blockage of justice, and for that reason organized the offenses specifically as the Guelines show. Once the court identified the base offense level and included and deducted improvements and decreases, the court identified the “total punishment” to be 108 to 135 months. The court then enforced a sixty month sentence for cash laundering and a forty-eight month sentence for blockage of justice. Applying area 5G1.2( d), the court purchased these sentences to run consecutively, to the degree essential to produce a combined sentence within the “total punishment” series of the Guelines’ offense level of thirty-one, to wit 108-135 months. Thus, Maggi’s argument that these successive sentences penalized her twice and surpassed the overall penalty variety is merely inaccurate.The district court effectively organized the counts and sentenced Maggi appropriately.

II.

Maggi even more competes that the two-point improvement for blockage of justice made up incorrect double counting. She insists this boost penalizes her for conduct currently taken into conseration by the imposition of the 3 blockage of justice counts.We need to disagree.

Section 3C1.1 of the Guelines shows:“If the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, increase offense level by 2 levels.” Application Note 6 to this area deals with the applicability of this improvement in a scenario in which, as here, the accused has actually been founded guilty of blockage of justice in addition to several substantive offenses. This note states in significant part:

Where the accused is founded guilty both of the blockage offense and the underlying offense, the count for the blockage offense will be organized with the count for the underlying offense under subsection (c) of § 3D1.2 (Groups of Closely-Related Counts). The offense level for that group of closely-related counts will be the offense level for the underlying offense increased by the 2-level change defined by this area, or the offense level for the blockage offense, whichever is higher.

In the instantaneous case, the district court complied with the determines of this note by organizing the cash laundering and blockage of justice offenses under area 3D1.2( c), using the proper offense level for cash laundering, and changing up by 2 points. Thus, although Maggi was founded guilty of both cash laundering and blockage of justice, the extra two-point blockage improvement appertained under the Guelines.

Moreover, this formula makes sure the two-point improvement does not make up “double counting.” As talked about above, when carefully associated counts are organized under area 3D1.2( c), the offense level utilized is that for the most severe of the counts. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3( a), supra. Here, the cash laundering count was the most severe, and for that reason, the court used its offense level. The court’s subsequent two-point upward change for blockage of justice d not make up double counting due to the fact that it was utilized to boost just this cash laundering offense level. Had the blockage of justice count( s) required an offense level greater than the cash laundering count (plus the two-point improvement), Note 6, supra, shows that the blockage base level would have used, without the improvement. This area of the Guelines, as clarified by Note 6, was for that reason crafted to avo double counting for blockage of justice.

We likewise decline Maggi’s even more ramification that the improvement in some way enforced duplicative penalty for her obstructive conduct. The improvement is utilized simply to identify the relevant Guelines variety. Yet the court sentenced Maggi just when for blockage of justice, and her forty-eight month sentence was within the statutory term. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Thus, Maggi’s recommendation that she was in fact penalized two times for her obstructive conduct is merely incorrect.

III.

Maggi likewise asserts the district court incorrectly declined to approve her a two-point decrease due to her small involvement in the conspiracy. We conclude that the court d not err in finding Maggi was not entitled to such a decrease.

Section 3B1.2( b) of the Guelines shows that “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels.” Note 3 to this area specifies that “a minor participant means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”We evaluate a district court’s accurate finding concerning an offender’s function in the offense under the plainly incorrect requirement. United States v. Gutierrez, 978 F. 2d 1463, 1471 (7th Cir.1992).

After consering the evence, the court listed below concluded that Maggi was “a major participant in the role of the offenses charged in this indictment.” The court for that reason rejected Maggi’s ask for a down change. Maggi competes that, after seeing the scope of Randy Lanier’s drug business in its totality, her function was small in contrast to that of the essential gamers. Although Maggi’s function in Lanier’s ten-year drug conspiracy might have been fairly little, the record supports the court’s conclusion that she was a main individual in cases underlying the cash laundering and blockage counts. The record recommends she played a crucial function in carrying out to negotiate company with Lanier’s drug cash when he was put behind bars and was a crucial gamer in conspiring to he Lanier’s properties and files. While Maggi argues there is evence to the contrary, we see absolutely nothing in the record that suggests the court’s conclusion was plainly incorrect.

IV.

Maggi’s last argument is that the district court overlooked the overall offense level for conspiracy to wash cash. She competes the evence is inadequate to support the district court’s finding that an eight-point improvement for funds including more than $6,000,000 was required. In the option, Maggi recommends the court ought to have subtracted 3 points from the offense level due to the fact that Maggi was arraigned and pled guilty to an uncompleted conspiracy to cash wash.

A.

To identify the base offense level for conspiracy to cash wash, a court should use “[t]he base offense level from the gueline for [money laundering], plus any adjustments from such gueline for any intended offense conduct that can be established with reasonable certainty.” U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1( a) (1992 ).Section 2S1.1 of the Guelines addresses the offense level for cash laundering convictions and requires a base level of twenty. In addition, area 2S1.1( b)( 2) shows for “specific offense characteristic” increases if the worth of the washed funds surpassed $100,000. For amounts higher than $6,000,000, the sentencing court need to include 8 levels to the base offense quantity. In the conspiracy context, such a particular offense quality is identified on the basis of “conduct of others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. (n. 1) (1992 ).

The district court discovered it was fairly foreseeable by Maggi that the conspirators’ laundering activities would include $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 and concluded the Swiss accounts in fact h that quantity of funds. Maggi argues this conclusion was unsupported by the record and for that reason incorrect. She competes there is no unbiased evence suggesting the Swiss accounts in concern in fact consisted of more than $6,000,000 at the time she ended up being associated with the conspiracy. Rather, she firmly insists, the only conclusive declaration of the quantity of cash the accounts consisted of recommends a combined balance of under $2,000,000. Thus, Maggi concludes, the court just ought to have increased the base level by 5 points-reflecting the real quantity of cash at the time of her criminal conduct.

We disagree. The district court’s conclusion that Maggi might fairly anticipate that the worth of the funds would go beyond $6,000,000, which the accounts in fact h such funds, has adequate assistance in the record. The court relied in part on Bobby Lanier’s declaration that there was $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 in the accounts at one time and Maggi’s own admission that Randy Lanier informed her each account consisted of $3,000,000. Although Maggi provided evence that the accounts consisted of far less by the time she ended up being included, the court weighed the trustworthiness of all of the evence and concluded otherwise.We discover absolutely nothing in the record that suggests the court’s decision was plainly incorrect.

B.

In the option, Maggi competes the court erred by not lowering the area 2X1.1( a) base offense level by 3 points due to the fact that the cash laundering plan was uncompleted.Section 2X1.1( b)( 2) details the particular offense particular change for conspiracies:

If a conspiracy, reduction by 3 levels, unless the accused or a co-conspirator finished all of the acts the conspirators thought essential on their part for the effective conclusion of the substantive offense or the scenarios show that the conspirators will finish all such acts however for the apprehension or disturbance by some comparable occasion beyond their control.( focus included).

Thus, Maggi competes, due to the fact that she stopped working to finish all of the acts she and her co-conspirators believed essential to finish the cash laundering plan, the court erred by not subtracting 3 levels under this arrangement.

As the Government mentions, Maggi stopped working to raise this alternative theory in the court listed below. We for that reason evaluate the district court’s omission just for plain mistake.United States v. Wallace, 32 F. 3d 1171, 1174 (7th Cir.1994);United States v. Rosalez-Cortez, 19 F. 3d 1210, 1220 (7th Cir.1994). However, “[a] sentence based on an incorrect gueline range constitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus constitute plain error.”Wallace, 32 F. 3d at 1174 (pricing quote United States v. Robinson, 20 F. 3d 270, 273 (7th Cir.1993)). Maggi was sentenced to 108 months in jail after the court discovered her offense level to be thirty-one. A three-level reduction would have decreased her Gueline variety to 78-97 months. Thus, if the court mistakenly stopped working to subtract these 3 levels, the resulting bias to Maggi validates our remanding the case for redetermination. See Wallace, 32 F. 3d at 1174 (“[W]e must remand unless we have reason to believe that the error d not affect the district court’s selection of a particular sentence.”).

We believe the district court devoted plain mistake by stopping working to reduce Maggi’s offense level by 3 points without making an accurate decision whether Maggi finished her part in the cash laundering plan.Section 2X1.1( b)( 2 ), supra, mandates a three-level reduction unless the accused is discovered to have actually finished all acts the conspirators believed essential to finish the substantive offense. We can discover no indicator in the record the district court made such a decision.

In truth, parts of the record recommend the court believed otherwise. For example, in talking about the quantity of cash associated with the conspiracy, the court appeared to question whether Maggi, acting upon behalf of the conspiracy, effectively got control over the funds:

however here we do have the general management or tried management of all of the cash that is throughout the water in Switzerland or anywhereAnd I believe that that’s what she was associated with and had an effort to get control over. I do not understand whetherMr Lanier truly desired her to get control of it or not the method it ended up( focus included).

The court later on observed that the “whole thing has been frustrated as far as [Maggi’s] involvement is concerned․”Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the Government seriously contests that Maggi was not able to acquire control of the $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 the court discovered to be kept in Switzerland at one time. There is likewise no indicator Maggi finished all other acts she and her co-conspirators believed essential to finish the conspiracy. The record listed below, as it stands, shows little or no assistance for declining to lower Maggi’s offense level.

We for that reason remand this concern for additional conseration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742( f)( 1) (mentioning remand is needed if a sentence was enforced as an outcome of an inaccurate application of the Guelines);Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193,–, 112 S.Ct 1112, 1120, 117 L.Ed2 d 341 (1992 );Wallace, 32 F. 3d at 1174. Specifically, we direct the district court to identify whether Maggi effectively finished all acts she and her co-conspirators believed essential to wash all of the funds, or whether she will attain this when the Government stepped in. If not, the court should resentence Maggi in accordance with 2X1.1( b)( 2) of theGuelines

V.

For the foregoing factors, we verify the district court in part and remand in part for additional conseration constant with this viewpoint.

FOOTNOTES

Maggi’s dependence on area 5G1.2( c) of the Guelines is lost. This area shows that the sentences on all counts will run simultaneously, however just if “the sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is adequate to achieve the total punishment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2( c) (focus included). In the instantaneous case, the sixty month cash laundering sentence was not sufficient to attain the overall penalty of 108 months.

Maggi likewise asserts the Government showed inadequate evence of blockage of justice to necessitate the two-point improvement. We discover this argument lacks benefit, nevertheless, due to the fact that Maggi pled guilty to the 3 blockage counts, consequently waiving the Government’s concern of evidence. Thus, the only feasible concern raised by Maggi’s appeal is whether the conduct underlying the 3 counts likewise might support the two-point improvement, or whether this makes up double counting.

Section 3B1.2( a) shows that “[i]f the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels.” Although Maggi recommended listed below that she might be entitled to this change, she does not raise this argument on appeal, looking for just the two-point small involvement decrease.

The court headed out of its method to mention that he d not discover reliable the claims by the Swiss business people that half of the funds were lost in the stock exchange crash of 1987.

The Government competes that United States v. Smith, 953 F. 2d 1060, 1066-67 (7th Cir.1992), represents the proposal that mistakes of as much as 4 levels in setting an offender’s offense level do not make up plain mistake. We disagree.Smith included subtle interpretive troubles in using theGuelines We identified that the lower court’s analysis was not plain mistake and “may not have been error, period.”Id at 1067. Smith is for that reason unlike the instantaneous case, which includes a possible misapplication, instead of subtle analysis, of the Guelines.

Application Note 4 to area 2X1.1 is explanatory in figuring out whether a decrease of one, 2, or 3 levels would be proper. As talked about in area IV( A), supra, the district court’s finding that it was fairly foreseeable to Maggi that the conspiracy’s cash laundering activities might include $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 was not plainly incorrect. Thus, the court’s initial eight-level improvement under 2S1.1( b)( 2) appertained. The record does not support the conclusion, nevertheless, that Maggi ever in fact managed, handled, or rerouted more than $2,000,000, and the court never ever clearly discovered that Maggi, acting upon behalf of the conspiracy, prospered in getting control of any of the funds. Note 4 explains how Maggi’s absence of success in laundering all of the Swiss funds might impact the analysis. This Note states in significant part: In particular cases, the individuals might have finished (or have actually will total however for apprehension or disturbance) all of the acts essential for the effective conclusion of part, however not all, of the desired offense. In such cases, the offense level for the count (or group of closely-related several counts) is whichever of the following is higher: the offense level for the desired offense minus 3 levels [under section 2X1.1(b)(2) ] or the offense level for the part of the offense for which the essential acts were finishedFor example, where the desired offense was the theft of $800,000 however the individuals finished (or will finish) just the acts essential to take $30,000, the offense level is the offense level for the theft of $800,000 minus 3 levels, or the offense level for the theft of $30,000, whichever is higher.Under the determines of this Note, if Maggi prospered in managing something less than $2,000,000, such a partial conclusion of her job in the plan would lead to a decrease of the initial eight-level improvement under area 2S1.1( b)( 2) by a minimum of 3 levels. Because this Note needs the court to pick the higher of the offense levels, nevertheless, Maggi’s offense level can be decreased by no greater than the three-level decrease area 2X1.1( b)( 2) shows. Also, in the not likely occasion the court listed below finds Maggi in fact finished her function in the laundering offense regarding in between $2,000,000 and $6,000,000 of the funds, a decrease of just one or more points would be required. This holds true due to the fact that the 6 or seven-level improvement area 2S1.1( b)( 2) would show for laundering such amounts-without the 2X1.1( b)( 2) deduction-would produce an offense level a couple of points higher than the initial eight-level improvement minus 3 levels.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

Enter the characters you see listed below

Sorry, we simply require to make certain you’re not a robotic. For finest outcomes, please make certain your web browser is accepting cookies.