United States v. Binkholder, No. 17-2688 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence on remand for convictions related to his involvement in a fraudulent real estate investment scheme. The court held that the district court's determination that M.U. was a victim under USSG 2B1.1 was not erroneous where M.U. sustained a monetary loss because of defendant's scheme. The court rejected defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 3742(g)(1), and held that the district court's application of the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time of defendant's original sentencing did not violate the Constitution. Finally, defendant's remaining issues regarding the award of restitution and reasonableness of his sentence were not raised in his initial appeal and could not be raised now.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. On remand from this court, district court concluded M.U. was victim under Guidelines sec. 2B1.1 because M.U. sustained a monetary loss because of the defendant's scheme; the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and support the conclusion M.U. was a victim under the Guidelines. Binkholder's challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. sec. 3742(g)(1), which applies the same version of the Guidelines on remand as was in effect on the date of the original sentence accomplishes a rational goal and is not unconstitutional. Binkholder may not raise two new issues in this appeal arising from his original sentencing.
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.