United States v. John Dewey Lim

Citation: Not availableDocket: 00-1130

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; November 14, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Dewey Lim, also known as Jeff Kurosawa and Miyamato Sato, appeals his 57-month prison sentence following a guilty plea for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The sentence was determined by the district court using the 1998 United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The court applied a two-level increase for "more than minimal planning" and another two-level increase for Lim's role as a manager or leader in the offense, while denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Lim contested the court's calculations regarding his criminal history and sought a downward departure, claiming his criminal history overrepresented his conduct.

Lim's fraudulent activities involved submitting two credit applications to Borsheims Jewelry, falsely claiming substantial financial means under different names. He made eight jewelry purchases totaling $109,180, with only a $100 payment made, and failed to recover the jewelry. Borsheims Jewelry filed a civil lawsuit against Lim, who admitted during a deposition that he or an agent ordered most of the jewelry and implied a willingness to return it for a deal that would protect him from prosecution, which never materialized.

Originally indicted on eight counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud, Lim pleaded guilty to one count, and the government dismissed the remaining charges, agreeing that all conduct referenced in the indictment was relevant for sentencing and restitution purposes. The district court ordered restitution of $109,180 plus interest. Lim's appeal focuses on the district court's findings regarding planning and the nature of his criminal conduct, which the court deemed indicative of deliberate actions rather than mere opportunism. The appellate court reviews the district court's findings for clear error.

The district court's conclusion that the offense involved more than minimal planning is upheld, with no clear error found. Lim contests the court's finding that he was a leader or manager in the criminal activity, which warrants a two-level increase under USSG § 3B1.1(c). The appellate review of historical facts is for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, giving deference to the district court's factual inferences. The court noted Lim's supervision of an agent and that another individual stored goods for him, finding it implausible that they were not participating in the offense. Lim's own deposition supported the court's conclusion that he managed or supervised others, consistent with precedent that allows enhancement if a defendant supervises even one other participant.

Lim also argued against the denial of his motion for a downward departure based on his criminal history category, claiming it overstated the seriousness of his prior conduct. Under USSG § 4A1.3, a downward departure is permissible if the court finds significant overrepresentation of criminal history, but this circuit typically does not review discretionary denials unless the court claims lack of authority to consider mitigating factors. The record indicates the district court did not feel it lacked authority but determined that Lim's criminal history was accurately represented. 

Lastly, Lim's request for an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was denied. This decision is reviewed for clear error, and a reduction is not guaranteed solely based on a guilty plea. However, a guilty plea, along with truthful admissions of conduct, can provide significant evidence for acceptance of responsibility per USSG § 3E1.1.

Evidence of the defendant's acceptance of responsibility may be countered by his behavior that contradicts this notion. In this instance, despite Lim's guilty plea and truthful admission of guilt, he refused to aid in recovering the stolen jewelry and showed no remorse during his sentencing. His remarks to the court reflected an attitude of entitlement, expressing disbelief that he faced no leniency despite his claimed acceptance of responsibility. The district court characterized Lim as arrogant and lacking remorse, stating he acted as if he deserved praise for his actions. The court's findings regarding Lim's demeanor and attitude were supported by the record, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment.