[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.

[checkyoursudo]

My gut says that she'll get about 20 (or 20 years worth of concurrent), and get out in about 8 to 10.

[roywiggins]

My understanding is that on federal charges you have to serve at least 85% or so of the sentence, even with good behavior.

[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/...

[ansible]

> Free housing, food, health care ...

Shitty housing, unhealthy, often poorly prepared food, and frequently inadequate health care... when it isn't denied outright.

Being a prisoner in the USA, especially an elderly one, is terrible and shouldn't be joked about.

But being elderly and relying solely on Medicaid also sucks.

[hollerith]

>But being elderly and relying solely on Medicaid also sucks.

Agreed, but most US citizens who have worked at least a few years during their lives will get Medicare, too, which is significantly better.

[wisty]

Prisoners are more likely than the elderly to riot if their food is bad.

[chongli]

A better alternative to a retirement home is to retire to a cruise ship. It’s actually a lot more affordable than many retirement homes and far more luxurious, entertaining, and with way better food. You also get the benefit of being able to take day trips in various ports of call and of course you get full housekeeping services like any other cruise passenger.

[namdnay]

There's no-one on a cruise ship to wash you and take you to the toilet. And there are no hospitals to take you to when you have a stroke

[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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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 think in theory escape risk is a part of it, too, and people with extremely long sentences are presumed to have rather more motivation to escape.

[kstrauser]

I guess that makes sense, although on a personal level, I’d rather serve time in a minimum security prison and get it over with than escape, inevitably get caught, and have additional time in a worse place.

[Applejinx]

Do you mean 'how crudely and unintelligently you harm others'? It sounds like you're setting up a framework where you get sent to the mean prison if you're physically bullying people, and the more intelligently you deliver your harm the better treatment you get, perhaps up to a point where if you're smart enough you can harm people on an enormous scale and get, I don't know, praise for it instead of prison.

Elizabeth seems the sort of person most capable of executing a plan whereby she pulls off a prison break through enlisting the aid of a bunch of other prisoners who're promised freedom themselves, but in her plan are actually there as decoys to be killed. It seems analogous to stuff she's already happily done. She is potentially a risk even to other prisoners if she carries on as she has done. I don't buy that she's not a risk to others.

[kstrauser]

Well, that’s certainly one way to interpret it. Another way is that the point of prison is to separate someone from society, not to put them in physical harm. If an accountant embezzles from his employer, he should do time, but maybe surrounded by other accountants and not armed robbers.

I’m not talking about just Holmes here, but about prisons in general. It’s not supposed to be fun, but neither is it meant to support a collective revenge fantasy.

[datavirtue]

Two years later...article about Holmes beating up someone in prison.

[_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/