United States v. Arrington, No. 23-2173 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Jonathan Weber Arrington, the defendant, was employed by Recon Roofing and Construction to handle their finances. He was found guilty of wire fraud, having embezzled a total of $315,835 from the company between August 2019 and March 2021. Arrington appealed his sentence and the related restitution order. He argued that the district court erred by assigning him the burden of proof regarding any offset to the restitution amount. The defendant also contended that the court didn't account for the value of payments he made towards the loss, and that the imposed sentence was unreasonably harsh.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the sentence but vacated the restitution order. The Appeals Court stated that the district court was correct in assigning Arrington the burden of proof for any offset to the amount of restitution. However, it was determined that the district court had erred in not reducing the restitution amount by the value of shares sold by the defendant back to the company. Therefore, the restitution amount was reduced by $50,000 to $265,835. The court found the prison sentence to be reasonable, considering the factors such as Arrington's position of trust within the company, the extent of the fraud, his attempt to cover it up, and his prior federal fraud conviction.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err when it placed the burden on defendant to prove any offset to the amount of restitution. However, because evidence in the record shows that defendant presented sufficient evidence to establish that he sold shares in the victim company, valued at $50,000, back to his co-owner for one dollar, as partial payment toward the loss amount, the district court clearly erred when it declined to offset the amount of restitution by the value of the shares returned. The district court did not abuse its broad sentencing discretion when it imposed a within-Guidelines prison sentence, nor was the sentence substantively unreasonable. The restitution award is vacated, the case is remanded to the district court with directions to amend its judgment to reflect the amount of the offset, and the judgment of the district court is otherwise affirmed. Judge Kobes, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ April 02, 2024 ]
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.