The opinion of the court was delivered by: JEANNE SCOTT, District Judge
This matter came before the Court on December 9, 2005, for the
sentencing of Defendant Bruce Beams. Defendant Beams appeared in
person and by his attorney Jon Noll. The Government appeared by
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia McInerney. On July 20, 2005,
Defendant Beams pleaded guilty to the charge of Wire Fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, as alleged in Count 1 of the
Indictment. The United States Probation Office prepared a Revised
Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), dated November 18, 2005.
The Government had no objections to the PSR.
Defendant Beams raised the following objections to the PSR: Paragraphs 9, 29, 34, 47, 49, 50, and 51
Defendant Beams objected to factual assertions in each of these
Paragraphs. The Court did not rule on these objections because
the objections did not affect the calculation of the sentencing
range under the Guidelines. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B). The
Court noted for the record that the Defendant disputed the
information in these Paragraphs for the reasons stated in his
Commentary (d/e 11).
Defendant Beams also objected to the finding in Paragraph 32
that he should receive two criminal history points because he
committed the offense of conviction while serving a term of
supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). Beams was serving a term
of supervised release until August 3, 2001. PSR ¶ 28. The
Government announced that the available evidence showed that the
Defendant began committing the offense of conviction later in
August 2001. The Government therefore had no opposition to the
objection. The Court allowed the objection and held that
Defendant Beams should not receive the two criminal history
The Defendant had no other objections to the PSR. The Court
therefore adopted the remainder of the findings of the PSR as its
own. Accordingly, the Court found that Defendant Beams had an offense
level of 8, and was in criminal history category III. The
resulting Guideline sentencing range was 6 to 12 months, in Zone
B of the Guideline Range. The Court noted that the Guidelines are
advisory, and the Court must exercise its discretion to determine
Defendant Beams' sentence, considering the Guidelines, the
statutory sentencing factors, and all other relevant information.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005);
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
THEREFORE, after considering the evidence presented, the
Guidelines, the relevant statutory sentencing factors, the
arguments of counsel, and the statement of Defendant Beams, the
Court sentenced Defendant Beams to a term of 8 months
imprisonment; to be followed by 3 years of supervised release,
with the first two months of such supervised release to be served
in home confinement; ordered him to pay restitution in the sum of
$20, 815.00; and imposed a $100.00 special assessment. The
special assessment was ordered to be due immediately. The Court
waived the accrual on interest on the unpaid restitution. The
Court ordered Defendant Beams to pay the restitution for the
benefit of the victim Sean Watts. The Court also ordered
Defendant Beams to pay restitution as follows: (1) during his term of imprisonment, Defendant Beams
shall pay quarterly installments of (a) $25.00 if he is not
employed in a UNICOR position, or (b) 50 percent of his income if
he is employed in a UNICOR position; and (2) upon his release
from prison, Defendant Beams shall pay, in monthly installments,
a sum equal to the greater of: (a) 33 percent of his monthly
disposable income, or (b) $250.00; provided, however, that should
Defendant Beams receive from any source, other than his own
earnings, property or money with a value of $1,000.00 or more, he
shall report this to the Probation Office and he shall pay the
money or property so received toward satisfying the restitution.
Should Defendant Beams fail to make any prescribed payment
without giving prior notice to the Probation Office or the Court,
the entire amount of the unpaid restitution shall be immediately
due and payable. No fine is imposed.
The Court granted the Government's oral motion to dismiss Count
2 of the Indictment. The Court also allowed Defendant Beam's oral
motion to recommend to the Federal Bureau of Prisons that he be
placed in a facility as close to Springfield, Illinois, as
possible. The Court then informed Defendant Beams of his appeal
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...