Sixth Circuit Overules Judge For 99% Sentencing Reduction

Michael Peppel, a former CEO of MCSi Inc., who pleaded guilty to a scheme that ultimately led to the bankruptcy of his company, was facing 10 years in prison for his criminal activity. The trial court decided that seven days was long enough-- the Sixth Circuit vehemently disagreed.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peppel be resentenced for his guilty plea to conspiracy to commit fraud, false certification of a financial report and money laundering. The Sixth Circuit said that a district judge in Cincinnati abused her discretion by handing down an “unreasonably low” sentence of seven days.

Peppel had been accused of working with his CFO to inflate the results of some sham transactions with a fake company to pump up the company’s numbers. During the same time Peppel was accused of unloading company stock and making millions in profits as share prices rose due to the financial trickery. Not long after he launched his scheme, Peppel’s company went bankrupt and 1,300 people were out of work.

Prosecutors pushed for severe punishment as a deterrent to others and asked that he be given between 97 and 121 months in prison. According to federal guidelines this length was recommended, though not technically required.

The judge who heard the cases said that the years since the indictment had been punishing enough for Peppel and that she felt sorry for him because he had a family to support and a brother with multiple sclerosis. The judge continued saying that she believed Peppel was a “remarkably good man” and that his mistakes should not define him. The judge concluded that it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to incarcerate someone who has the ability to add so much to the country’s economy. He was sentenced to a week in jail, a $5 million fine and three years of supervised release.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court judge was wrong to rely on unremarkable aspects of Peppel’s life to justify a 99% reduction in the recommended prison sentence. The Sixth Circuit opinion said that nothing in the record showed that Peppel had any more extraordinary support or family obligations than any other defendant who faces a possible criminal sentence. The case was remanded for resentencing.

To read the full opinion, click here.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Sixth Circuit Discusses What Makes A Jail Escape A “Crime of Violence”

Sixth Circuit Hears Criminal Trade Secrets Case Concerning Giant Tires

State v. Bise: New Standard of Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions

By Stevie Phillips

In a unanimous Tennessee Supreme Court opinion handed down on September 26, Chief Justice Wade outlines the historical development of state and federal sentencing guidelines.

In short, he observes that the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's 1989 Sentencing Act were passed for the purpose of bringing our sentencing scheme in line with United States Supreme Court sentencing decisions, namely Apprendi and its progeny.  This is the first time since the passage of those amendments that the Tennessee Supreme Court has had an opportunity to address the effect of those Supreme Court decisions on Tennessee's standard of appellate review. 

In the view of the Court, the effect is that "de novo appellate review and the 'presumption of correctness' [has] ceased to be relevant.  Instead, sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a 'presumption of reasonableness.'"

You can read the full opinion here.