United States v. Studley

United States v. Studley

Opinion

 [*570]  OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge:

Brian Studley appeals from an April 28, 1994, judgment of conviction, after a guilty plea, of one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern [**2]  District of New York, Arthur D. Spatt, J. Studley was sentenced to ten months of incarceration, followed by two years of supervised release, and was required to pay a special assessment of $ 50.

The sentence was based on the district court's determination that activities of other offenders were "jointly undertaken" with Studley within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) and thus were attributable to Studley for sentencing purposes as relevant conduct. The issue on appeal is whether the district court used the proper legal standard in making this determination. As set forth below, we hold that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard and thus did not make the findings of fact necessary to determine whether the defendant participated in jointly undertaken criminal activity. We vacate the sentence and remand for further fact-finding and for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

I. Background

On July 29, 1993, Brian Studley pled guilty to fraudulently inducing a customer to pay a $ 249 application fee for a loan the customer would never actually receive, thereby committing one count of mail fraud. The fraud took place while Studley worked as a salesperson [**3]  in a telemarketing operation which employed between ten and twenty sales representatives, all of whom were making similar false representations to customers. In Studley's Presentence Report, the Probation Department recommended to the court that Studley be held accountable for the entire loss caused by the telemarketing operation during the term of his employment, just under $ 120,000, as it was relevant conduct pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2).

Studley objected to this recommendation in a letter dated January 17, 1994. He argued that the actions of the other employees of the telemarketing operation were not "jointly undertaken criminal activity" within the meaning of section 1B1.3(a)(2), and therefore should not be attributed to Studley. Studley argued that he should be liable only for the estimated $ 5,000 - $ 10,000 loss he caused himself.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.