Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Mark Goss, 11th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    101 views4 pages
    The document summarizes a court case in which Mark Goss appealed his 144 month prison sentence for using the mail to distribute false information as part of a fraudulent investment scheme. The court affirmed the sentence, finding that Goss was not entitled to notice of an above-guidelines sentence, nor a continuance to respond to victim impact statements. It also found the sentence reasonable given the nature and circumstances of Goss's long-running scheme that defrauded over 40 individuals of almost $2 million.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-11-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-11481

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a court case in which Mark Goss appealed his 144 month prison sentence for using the mail to distribute false information as part of a fraudulent investment scheme. The court affirmed the sentence, finding that Goss was not entitled to notice of an above-guidelines sentence, nor a continuance to respond to victim impact statements. It also found the sentence reasonable given the nature and circumstances of Goss's long-running scheme that defrauded over 40 individuals of almost $2 million.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    101 views4 pages

    United States v. Mark Goss, 11th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a court case in which Mark Goss appealed his 144 month prison sentence for using the mail to distribute false information as part of a fraudulent investment scheme. The court affirmed the sentence, finding that Goss was not entitled to notice of an above-guidelines sentence, nor a continuance to respond to victim impact statements. It also found the sentence reasonable given the nature and circumstances of Goss's long-running scheme that defrauded over 40 individuals of almost $2 million.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    Case: 12-11481

    Date Filed: 11/30/2012

    Page: 1 of 4

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-11481
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00068-CAR-CHW-1

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    lPlaintiff-Appellee,
    versus

    MARK GOSS,
    a.k.a. Ronald Mark Goss,
    lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    lDefendant-Appellant.

    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (November 30, 2012)
    Before MARCUS, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Case: 12-11481

    Date Filed: 11/30/2012

    Page: 2 of 4

    Mark Goss appeals his sentence of 144 months of imprisonment following


    his plea of guilty of using the mail to distribute false information to victims of his
    fraudulent investment scheme. 18 U.S.C. 1341. Goss argues, for the first time,
    that he was entitled to notice that he would receive a sentence above the advisory
    guideline range or, alternatively, to a continuance to prepare a response to the
    victim impact statements used to fashion his sentence. Goss also argues that his
    sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
    The district court did not err, much less plainly err, in failing to give Goss
    notice of its decision to impose an above-guideline sentence or to sua sponte
    continue Gosss sentencing hearing. Goss was not entitled to notice that the
    district court intended to vary from the advisory guideline range. See Irizarry v.
    United States, 553 U.S. 708, 71314, 716, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 220203 (2008).
    Although the district court used the word depart to describe its discretionary
    authority to the victims who attended Gosss sentencing hearing and to explain that
    the sentence was atypical, the district court stated during the hearing and in its
    written statement of reasons that its sentencing decision was based on a variance
    from the advisory guideline range, not a departure under a provision of the
    Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1316
    (11th Cir. 2009). The district court discussed the nature and circumstances of
    2

    Case: 12-11481

    Date Filed: 11/30/2012

    Page: 3 of 4

    [Gosss] offense and his history and characteristics, and then the district court
    explained that it was varying from the advisory guideline range pursuant to the
    factors found at 18 USC Section 3553(a) because the advisory guideline
    sentencing range [was] inadequate to address [either] the gravity of [Gosss]
    criminal conduct . . . [or] the impact that [his] conduct . . . had on the lives of
    victims in the community. And the district court was not required to sua sponte
    continue Gosss sentencing hearing to allow him investigate and respond to the
    victims accounts of fraud. Goss had been forewarned of the import of the victims
    statements in the presentence investigation report. The report stated that 25
    individuals and 9 couples had submitted victim impact statements and that most of
    Gosss victims had been elderly and trusted him because they had met Goss at
    church, through Senior Citizen groups[,] . . . had known him since he was a
    child[,] and, in some cases, had purchased insurance from him. Goss declined
    to cross-examine any of the victims during his sentencing hearing, and he did not
    request a continuance to respond to their statements.
    The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Goss to 144
    months of imprisonment. The district court varied upward from the advisory
    guideline range of 63 to 78 months based on the victim statements and . . . the
    quarterly reports . . . that Mr. Goss sent to his investors, which revealed that Goss
    3

    Case: 12-11481

    Date Filed: 11/30/2012

    Page: 4 of 4

    used a very elaborate cover-up in the course of defrauding 41 individuals and 10


    couples of almost $2 million over the course of nine years. In the light of these
    circumstances, the district court reasonably determined that a sentence above the
    recommended range was necessary to address the nature and circumstances of
    Gosss offense, his history and characteristics, and the seriousness of his offense
    and to promote respect for the law, impose a just punishment, deter similar future
    crimes, and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a); see Gall v. United States, 552
    U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). Gosss sentence, which is well below the
    maximum statutory sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, is reasonable.
    We AFFIRM Gosss sentence.

    You might also like