Third Circuit Remands For Resentencing Case of Bankruptcy Fraud Defe...

The Third Circuit recently remanded the case of a bankruptcy fraud defendant for re-sentencing on the ground that the district court failed adequately to explain how it applied the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and failed to explain it's ruling on the defendant's objection to the restitution amount.  The unpublished decision in United States v. Jackson, No. 19-1579 (3rd Cir. March 30, 2020) (slip op.) (here).

Michael Jackson was convicted following a plea to 30 counts of criminal conduct including making false statements in relation to a bankruptcy proceeding (18 U.S.C. 152(3)) and bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. 157(1)).  The district court sentenced him to 145 months imprisonment and ordered him to pay $1,567,275.25 in restitution.  During sentencing, Jackson argued that he was entitled to a downward variance from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range so he could be released from prison while young enough to earn money to repay his victims.  The district court neither responded to the argument nor recited any particular section 3553(a) factor in explaining its sentence.  While counsel did not object, the failure adequately to explain application of the statutory factors was plain error in the view of the Third Circuit and necessitated remand.

The appellate court found a second error in how the district court handled Jackson's objection to a portion of the restitution order.  Jackson had raised two objections to the restitution amount, one to a $175,000 portion of the order and a second objection to a $74,500 portion of the order.  The district court granted the first objection but as the Third Circuit noted on appeal, the record "offers no other indication that the District Court had even considered Jackson's second objection and the arguments made in support thereof."  Even the government conceded that failure to explain was plain error.  Accordingly, the Third Circuit remanded the case for resentencing.