USA v. John Lebron, No. 13-12054 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10519 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10519 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00258-EAK-MAP-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA LEBRON, a.k.a. Patricia Kumer, PAUL GOGOLEWSKI, JOHN W. LEBRON, Defendants - Appellants. ________________________ No. 13-12054 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00075-EAK-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, Case: 13-10519 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 2 of 3 versus JOHN LEBRON, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 21, 2014) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In connection with their conspiracy to engage in loan and credit application fraud, wire fraud, and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, John Lebron and Paul Gogolewski appeal their sentences, and Patricia Lebron appeals her conviction for wire fraud. On appeal, they argue: 1. That the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury s conviction of Patricia Lebron for wire fraud affecting a financial institution (Count 7); 2. That the district court erred by applying the U.S.S.G. ยง 3A1.1(b) vulnerable-victim enhancement to John Lebron s offense level when calculating his guidelines range; 3. That John Lebron s sentence was substantively unreasonable; and 2 Case: 13-10519 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 Page: 3 of 3 4. That the district court s forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $353,400.00 was erroneous because it included the consideration of acquitted conduct (Count 7). Having thoroughly considered the briefs and the record, and after the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. Nevertheless, we note that the forfeiture money judgment incorrectly states that Gogolewski was convicted on Count 7. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the forfeiture money judgment to state that Gogolewski was convicted only on Count 6 of the Superseding Indictment. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART TO CORRECT APPELLANT GOGOLEWSKI S FORFEITURE MONEY JUDGMENT. 3
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.
