Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Mark Goss, 11th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Mark Goss, 11th Cir. (2012)
Page: 1 of 4
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
Page: 2 of 4
Case: 12-11481
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
Page: 4 of 4