Case: 19-10409 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 19-10409; 19-10411
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:14-cr-20619-KMM-1,
1:12-cr-20630-KMM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL R. CASEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 21, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Casey appeals his sentence of 234 months of imprisonment for
conspiring to commit wire and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and for failing to
Case: 19-10409 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 2 of 4
appear,
id. § 3146(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i). Casey challenges the denial of a reduction in
his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (Nov. 2018). He also argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err when it denied Casey a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. Casey was not automatically entitled to a reduction
for acceptance of responsibility for pleading guilty. See
id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3. And
his efforts to thwart his prosecution were inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility. After being indicted, Casey failed to appear for a status conference,
lied to acquaintances concerning his whereabouts, and fled to Mexico, where he
lived for four years until Mexican officials found him. Casey also attempted to
evade arrest by arguing with the Mexican officials about his photograph being on a
wanted poster and by giving the officers a false name. Casey’s conduct resulted in
an increase in his base offense level for obstruction of justice, see
id. § 3C1.1,
which “ordinarily indicates that [a] defendant has not accepted responsibility for
his criminal conduct,”
id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4. Although a defendant may be punished
for obstruction and receive an adjustment for accepting responsibility, that pairing
should happen in only “extraordinary cases.”
Id. “Under clear error review, we will
not disturb the district court’s findings unless we are left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake was made,” United States v. Delva,
922 F.3d 1228, 1255
2
Case: 19-10409 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 3 of 4
(11th Cir. 2019), and we cannot say that the district court made a mistake by
finding that Casey did not have “that extraordinary case . . . that would warrant an
acceptance of responsibility.”
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Casey to
210 months of imprisonment for conspiracy and a consecutive term of 24 months
for failure to appear. The district court reasonably determined that sentences at the
low end of Casey’s recommended guideline range of 210 to 262 months for
conspiracy and within his guideline range of 0 to 120 months for failure to appear
were required to address the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553. As the district court stated, it selected a sentence to address Casey’s
leadership role in a conspiracy to defraud in which he swindled about $18 million
from more than 250 victims, his abuse of trust reposed in him as a lawyer, and his
failure as “an officer of the court” to “adhere[] to the rule of law.” Casey argues
that the district court should have granted him a downward variance based on his
age, his declining health, and the unlikelihood of his recidivism, but we cannot say
the district court abused its discretion by assigning greater weight to other
sentencing factors. See United States v. Clay,
483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).
Casey also argues that his sentence is disparate to the sentences of 189 months and
168 months imposed, respectively, on coconspirators James Howard and Louis
Gallo, but they are not similarly situated to Casey. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6);
3
Case: 19-10409 Date Filed: 11/21/2019 Page: 4 of 4
United States v. Docampo,
573 F.3d 1091, 1101–02 (11th Cir. 2009). Neither of
Casey’s coconspirators fled to Mexico or were lawyers. Casey’s sentence is
reasonable.
We AFFIRM Casey’s sentence.
4
