[tptacek]

For one thing, because he's the author of this pretty famous post:

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

For another, because the guidelines are pretty specific in this case --- that 2B1.1 crimes are charged according to --- well, here's the wording from the guidelines: "the applicable base offense level is determined by the count of conviction that provides the highest statutory maximum term of imprisonment.". So "3x20" seems off the table.

[throwawaylinux]

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478172078092128256

"They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects."

When he said it's not clear she'll do less than 20, I don't think he meant she might get more than 20, just that she might get 20.

[tptacek]

The thing here is, you get up to around 20 years just with a single wire fraud count, because the amounts involved here are so high. We're at $143MM in losses on the three wire fraud charges together (2B1.1 states they're to be summed up), which gets you a 26(!)-level enhancement from the base level of 7. That's 12 years (at the bottom of the range), and every other enhancement you take after level 33 is another ~4 years; there are 3-4 enhancements (like "sophisticated means") that seem likely to apply.

On the flip side, given the huge sums involved, it's not easy to make the numbers make sense served consecutively.

Here's an article about grouping:

https://www.josephabramslaw.com/understanding-grouping-rules...

[throwawaylinux]

Yes there's lots of very high and very low guesses as to what she might get going around. I'm just commenting here specifically on this twitter guy's opinion.

[tptacek]

I missed some guidelines stuff; there's a separate section for role in the offense, and another for obstruction. The tally I get:

    7  (Base offense)
    +24 ($140MM in damages)
    +2 (10+ victims)
    +2 (Sophisticated means)
    +4 (Leading role)
    +2 (Abuse of public trust)
    +2 (Obstructed investigations)

That gets us level... 43. Yikes.

Consecutive vs. concurrent isn't the issue here; doing a $140MM wire fraud puts you on the hook for an insane sentence.

So this is a case where the whale sushi sentence is... theoretically possible?! Wow.

[roywiggins]

Mitchell Eppner agrees with you:

https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-...

[tptacek]

There is no f'ing way she's getting 65 years though.

[tiahura]

Yikes. Plus, my understanding is that > 10 means no minimum security camp and > 20 means no low security, so she would start off in medium security. - assuming it works the same way with woman as with men)

[nobody9999]

>Yikes. Plus, my understanding is that > 10 means no minimum security camp and > 20 means no low security, so she would start off in medium security. - assuming it works the same way with woman as with men)

I'm curious where you got that understanding. Would you mind sharing?

Especially since that could put the khibosh on my retirement plans (commit a serious, but non-violent federal crime and receive a lengthy -- hopefully the rest of my life -- sentence at a minimum security "Club Fed"[0] facility).

Free housing, food, health care and clothes with no tax liability for the rest of my life? It makes me want to to massively defraud some congress-critters once I turn 70 or so.

Assuming I could be assured of conviction, I'd even hold on to the stolen money so it could be returned to the victims.

Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious. But decent assisted living facilities run from USD6-12k/month and once I've spent all my money, it's off to a Medicaid facility that isn't much better than minimum security prisons anyway.

This way, I can give my money to those I care about and not have to worry about spending down my life savings to ~USD2,000 in order to qualify for crappy accommodations at a facility that accepts Medicaid patients.

Just sayin'.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/...

[kstrauser]

Is that how it works? I’d hope you’re wrong, but have no reason to think so, because I’d like to believe that the kind of prison you’re sent to is related to how much of a risk you are to others. I’m not remotely an Elizabeth Holmes fan, but she isn’t going to be beating people up in the prison yard.

[_moof]

"This Twitter guy" has probably forgotten more about federal criminal law than anyone on this site will ever learn. https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/

[dragonwriter]

> "They run concurrently except to the extent necessary to serve the full sentence the judge selects."

Note that that is a big except, when you have lots of points, which big $ frauds get you quickly.