United States v. James Berghuis ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 02 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10441
Plaintiff-Appellee, DC No. CR 10-377 WBS
v.
JAMES BERGHUIS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
***
The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Defendant-Appellant James Berghuis ran a Ponzi scheme in which his
investors lost at least $2.7 million. When he did not repay one of his investors as
promised, the investor sued him. On July 7, 2008, Berghuis admitted in a
deposition that he owed the amount claimed by the investor but falsely testified
that he used the money for real estate transactions and promissory notes, when in
fact he used the money for Ponzi payments to past investors, personal expenses,
gifts to family, credit card balances, and overdraft fees. Berghuis was later
convicted of nine counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.
Berghuis appeals the 168 month sentence imposed by the district court at
resentencing. He argues that there was no support in the record for the district
court’s imposition of an obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
3C1.1, and he argues that the 168-month prison sentence was an abuse of
discretion because it was a “substantial variance” above the guideline range. We
affirm.
1. An obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement may be based on
perjury committed in a civil lawsuit if the perjury pertains to conduct that forms
the basis of the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(B); see United
States v. Gilchrist, 658 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2011). The enhancement may cover
perjury committed “prior to the start of the investigation of the instant offense of
2
conviction . . . if the conduct was purposefully calculated, and likely, to thwart the
investigation or prosecution of the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt.
n.1. To support an obstruction of justice enhancement, the district court must
explicitly find that the obstructive conduct: (1) occurred with respect to the
investigation of the defendant’s instant offense of conviction; (2) related to the
defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; and (3) was material.
Id.; United States v. Herrera-Rivera, 832 F.3d 1166, 1174–75 (9th Cir. 2016); see
also United States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, the district court made explicit factual findings for all three elements
of the obstruction enhancement, finding that Berghuis’ perjury: (1) occurred with
respect to the investigation into his criminal Ponzi scheme, (2) sufficiently related
to his Ponzi scheme, and (3) was purposely calculated, and likely, to thwart a
potential criminal investigation regarding his scheme. Therefore, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhancement.
2. Sentences are reviewed for reasonableness, and only a procedurally
erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence is set aside. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). “A substantively reasonable sentence is one
that is ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ to accomplish § 3553(a)(2)’s
sentencing goals.” United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012)
3
(en banc) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). When a sentence varies from the
guidelines, due deference is given “to the district court’s decision that the §
3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
Here, the district court correctly calculated the advisory sentencing guideline
range of 121 to 151 months and then carefully considered all of the sentencing
factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Based on these considerations, the district
court determined that an above-guidelines sentence of 168 months was “sufficient
but not greater than necessary in order to send out the right message to others who
might be inclined to commit this crime, in order to protect potential victims from
Mr. Berghuis’s similar conduct in the future, and in order to make sure that crime
doesn’t pay for him.” The district court did not commit a procedural error nor was
the sentence substantively unreasonable; the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Berghuis to 168 months of incarceration.
• ! •
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4