District Judge Paul A. Crotty

 

Read Full-Text Decision

In March 2013 a jury convicted Levy of all five counts charged in a securities and mail fraud pump and dump scheme, involving millions of dollars, orchestrated by her and her husband. Ten other defendants pleaded guilty. On Feb. 19, 2014 the court sentenced Levy to 66 months in prison. Seeking 28 USC §2255 sentence reduction and immediate release, Levy claimed counsel ineffectively failed to properly advise her about a guilty plea or cooperation agreement. The court denied Levy’s §2255 petition as meritless. There were no indicia of a formal plea offer. No objective evidence supported Levy’s claim she would have pleaded guilty or cooperated. It was also highly doubtful she would have cooperated against her codefendant husband. Levy’s comparison of her role in the charged crime to her codefendants was inappropriate because they were not similarly situated. The loss amount attributed to Levy showed she was not similarly situated to the five so-called Pleading Defendants. They had less significant roles, dealt with lower amounts of money, had lower offense levels, and lower Sentencing Guidelines calculations. Thus there was no sentencing disparity between Levy sentence and the Pleading Defendants’ much shorter sentences.

District Judge Paul A. Crotty

 

Read Full-Text Decision

In March 2013 a jury convicted Levy of all five counts charged in a securities and mail fraud pump and dump scheme, involving millions of dollars, orchestrated by her and her husband. Ten other defendants pleaded guilty. On Feb. 19, 2014 the court sentenced Levy to 66 months in prison. Seeking 28 USC §2255 sentence reduction and immediate release, Levy claimed counsel ineffectively failed to properly advise her about a guilty plea or cooperation agreement. The court denied Levy’s §2255 petition as meritless. There were no indicia of a formal plea offer. No objective evidence supported Levy’s claim she would have pleaded guilty or cooperated. It was also highly doubtful she would have cooperated against her codefendant husband. Levy’s comparison of her role in the charged crime to her codefendants was inappropriate because they were not similarly situated. The loss amount attributed to Levy showed she was not similarly situated to the five so-called Pleading Defendants. They had less significant roles, dealt with lower amounts of money, had lower offense levels, and lower Sentencing Guidelines calculations. Thus there was no sentencing disparity between Levy sentence and the Pleading Defendants’ much shorter sentences.