- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 22-1420 and 22-1619 (1st Circuit, Jul 15,2024) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The court affirmed the district court's determination denying all the arguments of judicial bias.
- Procedural context:
- After a multiday bench trial, a district judge in New Hampshire convicted Defendant (a then-attorney representing himself pro se with standby counsel) of various financial crimes — including bank and wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements in bankruptcy. The judge imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 48 months (Defendant had an advisory prison range of 168 to 210 months) and ordered restitution (to the tune of $2,449,352.57) without holding a defense-requested evidentiary hearing on the restitution question (the judge reached that parenthetically noted number after crediting Defendant with money received from a foreclosure sale of property referred to as 104 Foxberry). Defendant now presses a two-issue appeal (with subparts), arguing that we must either vacate the conviction and sentence because the judge violated his due-process right to a fair trial, or vacate the restitution order because the judge wrongly denied him an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals Affirmed.
- Facts:
- On appeal the defendant argues that the judge appeared biased against him and committed an abuse of discretion by prejudging guilt, overstepping the judicial role, preventing and effective defense and denying an evidentiary hearing for sentencing. also argued that the restitution amount was flawed since the bank and the chapter 7 trustee abandoned the property.
- Judge(s):
- Kayatta, Lipez, and Thompson,
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
