Mr. Lee’s sentence is two times higher than the recommended Guideline. https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2024-guidelines-manual-annotated.
On February 5, 2025, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Attorney Michael J. Petro filed his Opening Brief for John Lee.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The district court abused its discretion when it imposed the 204-month sentence, a sentence more than double the high end of the Guideline range. In the case at bar, Mr. Lee’s Guideline range was 78-97 months. In addition, both the Government and Probation proposed that a sentence within the 78-97-month Guideline range “was sufficient, but not greater than necessary.”
In short, the extraordinary variance was not supported by extraordinary circumstances and therefore lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of this case. Rather, the district court abused its discretion when it gave significant weight to improper factors and committed a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors. Specifically, the district court: (1) improperly considered that John Lee was a “spiritual advisor” for M.S.; (2) improperly considered the value of the jewelry; (3) improperly considered M.S. to be a victim; (4) improperly considered Joseph Grunberg to be a victim; and (5) improperly considered a litany of possible “crimes” which the court erroneously believed were being ignored and not taken into account by the Guidelines.
Here, the record established in no uncertain terms that the Government did not advocate for a role in the offense enhancement for abuse of trust or use of a special skill, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.3, and the district court did not assess the enhancement. As this Court has held, if Mr. Lee’s role in the offense was insufficient to warrant an aggravating enhancement under the Guidelines, then Mr. Lee’s role surely was not so extraordinary that it supported the extraordinary upward variance imposed by the district court.
Similarly, the district court improperly considered the value of the jewelry as an extraordinary circumstance because the value is already incorporated and factored into § 2B1.1(b) of the Guidelines. In this particular case, Mr. Lee’s offense level was increased by 24, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(M) because the value was more than $65 million, but less than $150 million. While the amount involved in this case was significant, it has been fully considered and factored into the Guidelines and Mr. Lee’s offense level was impacted accordingly. Thus, the value of the jewelry does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying the extraordinary variance imposed in this case.
In addition, the district court improperly considered M.S. and Joseph Grunberg as victims.
Finally, the district court erroneously thought certain conduct was being ignored and not taken into account when, in fact, the conduct was used to enhance Mr. Lee’s offense level.
CALL 11th CIRCUIT APPEALS ATTORNEY MICHAEL J. PETRO
To succeed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, you need an experienced and knowledgeable Federal Criminal Attorney. Call Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Michael J. Petro to be successful in your 11th Circuit Appeal. https://www.mjpetro.com/11th-circuit-criminal-appeals-attorney/
