6 ms·

Why does that make it surprising?

tptacek 5y ago
For one thing, because he's the author of this pretty famous post: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... For another, because the guidelines are pretty specific in this case --- that 2B1.1 crimes are charged according to --- well, here's the wording from the guidelines: "the applicable base offense level is determined by the count of conviction that provides the highest statutory maximum term of imprisonment.". So "3x20" seems off the table.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256 "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects." When he said it's not clear she'll do less than 20, I don't think he meant she might get more than 20, just that she might get 20.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The thing here is, you get up to around 20 years just with a single wire fraud count, because the amounts involved here are so high. We're at $143MM in losses on the three wire fraud charges together (2B1.1 states they're to be summed up), which gets you a 26(!)-level enhancement from the base level of 7. That's 12 years (at the bottom of the range), and every other enhancement you take after level 33 is another ~4 years; there are 3-4 enhancements (like "sophisticated means") that seem likely to apply. On the flip side, given the huge sums involved, it's not easy to make the numbers make sense served consecutively. Here's an article about grouping: https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules-under-the-federal-sentencing-guidelines/ https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Yes there's lots of very high and very low guesses as to what she might get going around. I'm just commenting here specifically on this twitter guy's opinion.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        I missed some guidelines stuff; there's a separate section for role in the offense, and another for obstruction. The tally I get: 7 (Base offense) +24 ($140MM in damages) +2 (10+ victims) +2 (Sophisticated means) +4 (Leading role) +2 (Abuse of public trust) +2 (Obstructed investigations) That gets us level... 43. Yikes. Consecutive vs. concurrent isn't the issue here; doing a $140MM wire fraud puts you on the hook for an insane sentence. So this is a case where the whale sushi sentence is... theoretically possible?! Wow.
        roywiggins 5y ago
        Mitchell Eppner agrees with you: https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-guilty-on https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-...
        tptacek 5y ago
        There is no f'ing way she's getting 65 years though.
        checkyoursudo 5y ago
        My gut says that she'll get about 20 (or 20 years worth of concurrent), and get out in about 8 to 10.
        roywiggins 5y ago
        My understanding is that on federal charges you have to serve at least 85% or so of the sentence, even with good behavior.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects." Note that that is a big except, when you have lots of points, which big $ frauds get you quickly.

For one thing, because he's the author of this pretty famous post: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... For another, because the guidelines are pretty specific in this case --- that 2B1.1 crimes are charged according to --- well, here's the wording from the guidelines: "the applicable base offense level is determined by the count of conviction that provides the highest statutory maximum term of imprisonment.". So "3x20" seems off the table.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256 "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects." When he said it's not clear she'll do less than 20, I don't think he meant she might get more than 20, just that she might get 20.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The thing here is, you get up to around 20 years just with a single wire fraud count, because the amounts involved here are so high. We're at $143MM in losses on the three wire fraud charges together (2B1.1 states they're to be summed up), which gets you a 26(!)-level enhancement from the base level of 7. That's 12 years (at the bottom of the range), and every other enhancement you take after level 33 is another ~4 years; there are 3-4 enhancements (like "sophisticated means") that seem likely to apply. On the flip side, given the huge sums involved, it's not easy to make the numbers make sense served consecutively. Here's an article about grouping: https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules-under-the-federal-sentencing-guidelines/ https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules...
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Yes there's lots of very high and very low guesses as to what she might get going around. I'm just commenting here specifically on this twitter guy's opinion.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      I missed some guidelines stuff; there's a separate section for role in the offense, and another for obstruction. The tally I get: 7 (Base offense) +24 ($140MM in damages) +2 (10+ victims) +2 (Sophisticated means) +4 (Leading role) +2 (Abuse of public trust) +2 (Obstructed investigations) That gets us level... 43. Yikes. Consecutive vs. concurrent isn't the issue here; doing a $140MM wire fraud puts you on the hook for an insane sentence. So this is a case where the whale sushi sentence is... theoretically possible?! Wow.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        Mitchell Eppner agrees with you: https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-guilty-on https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-...
        tptacek 5y ago
        There is no f'ing way she's getting 65 years though.
        checkyoursudo 5y ago
        My gut says that she'll get about 20 (or 20 years worth of concurrent), and get out in about 8 to 10.
        roywiggins 5y ago
        My understanding is that on federal charges you have to serve at least 85% or so of the sentence, even with good behavior.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects." Note that that is a big except, when you have lots of points, which big $ frauds get you quickly.