United States v. Travis, Christopher

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-3954

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 19, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christopher Travis pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and received a 96-month prison sentence. The central issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly denied him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Travis's statements to probation officials indicated a lack of acceptance of responsibility. From 1995 to 1998, he defrauded various financial institutions using counterfeit checks and checks from closed accounts. After his arrest in December 1998, Travis was indicted on multiple counts, including bank fraud, and initially sentenced to 36 months in September 1999. He failed to report for prison and was later apprehended in April 2000.

During the interim, he conducted an investment scam under the guise of 'Maple Investments,' soliciting over $200,000 from investors by falsely portraying himself as a successful stockbroker. To maintain the ruse, he sent fraudulent account statements to investors and provided false financial records to a grand jury investigating his fraud. In July 2001, he faced additional charges related to this scam. Following a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud but was found to have obstructed justice by providing false information related to the grand jury subpoena. The district court ruled that Travis did not demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, leading to a two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice and a denial of the downward adjustment he sought. On appeal, Travis contends that the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment was improper, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate such claims under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

In United States v. Ewing, the court addressed the criteria for determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for their actions, which is a factual issue reviewed for clear error. A presumption exists that a defendant who obstructs justice has not accepted responsibility. However, the court noted that obstruction-of-justice and acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In this case, the district court denied Mr. Travis an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment not due to his obstruction but because he minimized the illegality of his actions relating to Maple Investments during a presentence interview, claiming he did not intend to defraud investors and suggesting that the government's portrayal of his conduct was exaggerated. Such minimization of wrongdoing is viewed as a failure to accept responsibility. Mr. Travis argued that his guilty plea and willingness to acknowledge the government's loss estimate warranted an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment, but the court clarified that simply avoiding a trial does not guarantee such an adjustment. Acceptance of responsibility requires more than regret; it necessitates an acknowledgment of the wrongdoing itself. Mr. Travis's expressions of remorse were deemed insufficient, as he did not acknowledge the legal violations underlying his actions.

Mr. Travis’ request for an adjustment was denied by the district court, which was deemed not to be a clear error. The court found that Mr. Travis did not fully understand the illegality of his actions based on his comments to probation officials. He argued the district court provided insufficient reasons for the denial; however, the court's explanation and the record contained adequate factual support for its decision. Judge Castillo noted that Mr. Travis claimed he never intended to defraud investors and only began issuing fraudulent checks because some investors provided him with such checks. This reasoning was sufficient for the court's ruling. Additionally, Mr. Travis claimed he was entitled to a one-level decrease under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b)(2) for timely notifying authorities of his guilty plea. However, since he did not qualify for a two-level decrease under 3E1.1(a), the district court's findings supported the denial of both adjustments. The decision was affirmed.