United States v. Laurienti, No. 11-50294 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of securities fraud by use of manipulative and deceptive devices. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 36 years' supervised release. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he knew of Rule 10b-5; the district court did not err in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for abuse of trust under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3; the district court did not fail to be attentive to defendant's contentions as to mitigation; the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court committed plain error when it did not read the last two pages of his sentencing memorandum or view a DVD he had submitted; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence imposed for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud by use of manipulative and deceptive devices. The panel held that the district court properly denied the defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant knew of Rule 10b-5, where he had ample opportunity to present information showing he lacked knowledge of the substance of the rule, and his lack-of- knowledge claim is implausible. The panel held that the district court did not err in failing to provide specific reasons for rejecting the defense. The panel held that the district court did not err in applying to the defendant, a stock broker, an enhancement for abuse of a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, given the professional discretion the defendant exercised in selecting the securities to recommend, and the deference his recommendations received in light of his special knowledge and expertise. The panel rejected the defendant’s contentions that the district court was not attentive to his mitigation arguments and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.