NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 07-3857 & 07-4215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICKEY ALLEN WEICKSEL,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-cr-00495-2)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 11, 2010
Before: AMBRO, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
Filed: April 2, 2010
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
A jury found Mickey Allen Weicksel guilty of fourteen counts of wire fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1343, three counts of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and one count of
conspiracy to launder money under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The District Court sentenced
Weicksel to 168 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, a special
assessment of $1,800 and restitution of $750,324.37.
Weicksel challenges his sentence as unreasonable because it did not take into
account his serious mental problems as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). He also
argues that his sentence contravenes § 3553(a)(6) because disparities exist between his
sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators who were found guilty of similar
conduct. Weicksel also raises seven other issues (though his lawyer deems them
frivolous pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 736 (1967)). We disagree with
Weicksel’s claims and therefore affirm.
I.
Weicksel and Barrylee Paul Beers were partners in a business called Paul-Allen
Enterprises (“PAE”). PAE operated by entering into sales agreements to purchase
residential properties at prices above their fair market values. After an agreement was
reached, Weicksel and Beers would enter into side agreements with the sellers, who at
closing would kick back the excess money to PAE disguised as payments for repair bills.
This repair money was then sent to Weicksel and Beers’ other business, Property
Rehabilitation Consultants (“PRC”). PRC existed solely to funnel money.
After making the purchase agreements, Weicksel and Beers would obtain
mortgage loans based on the inflated sale prices. To obtain these loans, the two would
falsify information and submit forged tax returns. These mortgages were then used to
make down payments on the acquisition of additional properties.
2
In 2002, a grand jury issued an eighteen-count indictment against Weicksel and
Beers. The latter pled guilty to three counts of the indictment. Weicksel pled not guilty
and his case went to trial. In March 2006 a jury found Weicksel guilty on all counts. He
later submitted a pro se letter to the District Court alleging that his trial counsel was
ineffective. The Court permitted Weicksel’s attorney to withdraw and appointed new
counsel to represent him. At the sentencing hearing, the Court denied Weicksel’s motion
for a below-Guidelines sentence, considered the relevant sentencing factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and sentenced him as noted above. This sentence was within the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. Thereafter, Weicksel’s new
court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. This motion was denied
and Weicksel’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal, arguing that the District Court
imposed an unreasonable sentence (as well as bringing up the seven other issues on
Weicksel’s behalf that counsel believes are frivolous).
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction over this case under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction over Weicksel’s challenge to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “The party challenging the
sentence bears the ultimate burden of proving its unreasonableness, . . . and we accord
3
great deference to a district court’s choice of final sentence.” United States v. Lessner,
498 F.3d 185, 204 (3d Cir. 2007).
Our Court exercises plenary review in determining whether issues may be raised
on appeal, and whether issues are frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
III.
A.
As an appellate court, our role in evaluating the District Court’s sentence is limited
to determining whether the sentence was reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 46. “[A] sentence
will be upheld as reasonable if ‘the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful
consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’” United States v.
Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Grier, 449 F.3d
558, 574 (3d Cir. 2006)).
In determining whether a sentence is reasonable, an appellate court must first
“ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, [or] failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “To be
procedurally reasonable, a sentence must reflect a district court’s meaningful
consideration of the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Lessner, 498 F.3d at 203.
If the District Court’s sentence is procedurally sound, “the appellate court should
then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If the sentence falls within the
4
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, then “the appellate court may, but is not required
to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.” Id.
In the end, “[t]he fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded
that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district
court.” Id. “As long as a sentence falls within the broad range of possible sentences that
can be considered reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors, we must affirm.” United
States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 218 (3d Cir. 2008).
B.
Weicksel challenges the District Court’s sentence on the ground that the District
Court unreasonably applied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Specifically,
Weicksel argues that the District Court failed adequately to consider Weicksel’s mental
health problems under § 3553(a)(1) and the sentence of Weicksel’s partner, Beers, under
§ 3553(a)(6). We consider each argument in turn.
On the first issue, Weicksel listed his psychological problems (narcissistic
personality disorder, delusional disorder, hypomania, and probable psychopathic
personality disorder), but failed to explain why they warrant a lighter sentence.
Observing that Weicksel had consistently refused mental health treatment, the District
Court concluded that Weicksel poses a risk to the public and declined to impose a below-
Guidelines sentence. Additionally, the sentencing judge recommended that Weicksel
receive mental health treatment during his incarceration, further demonstrating the
Court’s consideration of Weicksel’s psychological problems. In this context, the Court
5
did not commit procedural error and appropriately considered Weicksel’s mental health
problems under § 3553(a)(1). Lessner, 498 F.3d at 203. The sentence was also
substantively sound, as it fell “within the broad range of possible sentences that can be
considered as reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” Wise, 515 F.3d at 218.
The second issue arose because the District Court sentenced Weicksel and Beers
differently. Although the charges against both were identical, their circumstances
differed. Beers cooperated with the Government and testified in its case against
Weicksel. In addition, Beers demonstrated understanding and accepted responsibility for
his actions, whereas Weicksel displayed neither acknowledgment nor remorse.
Congress enacted § 3553(a)(6) “to promote national uniformity in sentencing
rather than uniformity among co-defendants in the same case.” United States v. Parker,
462 F.3d 273, 277 (3d Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Boscarino, 473 F.3d. 634, 638
(7th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he kind of ‘disparity’ with which § 3553(a)(6) is concerned is an
unjustified difference across judges (or districts) rather than among defendants to a single
case.”). When facts on the record show a difference between similarly situated co-
defendants, disparate sentences are reasonable. Parker, 462 F.3d at 278. Thus, the
different sentences for Weicksel and Beers were reasonable, and the District Court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing a harsher sentence on Weicksel.
IV.
Weicksel’s counsel raised seven additional issues on Weicksel’s behalf, but
quickly dismissed each argument as frivolous, citing Anders. These issues are: (1) he was
6
wrongfully indicted; (2) the Court has no jurisdiction over his prosecution; (3) his right to
a speedy trial was violated; (4) his trial attorney should have been dismissed after
Weicksel fired him; (5) there was no proof that Weicksel was involved with PRC; (6) a
document confiscated from him, in which he purportedly admitted to criminal conduct,
should not have been admitted into evidence at trial; and (7) the Government failed to
establish that any “proceeds” were generated by PAE for purposes of the money
laundering statute. We agree with counsel that these claims are frivolous.
1. Wrongful indictment
Weicksel argues that a grand jury should not have indicted him, alleging that the
information presented to the grand jury was false and that unspecified true information
was not presented. Weicksel presented no facts to support these claims. “An indictment
returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by
the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.”
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956). Weicksel has not challenged the
make-up of the grand jury nor alleged that any of its members were biased. Thus, his
claim is without merit.
2. Jurisdiction
Weicksel asserts that the District Court has no jurisdiction over him because he is a
sovereign entity that cannot be prosecuted under the laws of the United States. Of course,
he is not his own sovereign entity, and the District Court had personal jurisdiction over
him. In addition, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Weicksel under
7
18 U.S.C. § 3231, which gives district courts jurisdiction over all offenses against the
laws of the United States.
3. Speedy Trial
Weicksel argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated. He has waived this
argument, as it is raised for the first time on appeal. Additionally, the record shows that
only Weicksel sought a continuance of the trial. Thus, even if he hadn’t waived this
argument, it would fail. Vermont v. Brillon, 129 S. Ct. 1283, 1290 (2009) (“[I]f delay is
attributable to the defendant, then his waiver may be given effect under standard waiver
doctrine.” (quoting Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 529 (1972))).
4. Firing of Trial Counsel
Weicksel contends that, because he fired his trial attorney, the District Court
should have held a hearing regarding the dismissal. This argument is not supported by
the record and cannot be raised on direct appeal.
5. Involvement with PRC
Weicksel’s claim that evidence failed to show that he was involved with PRC is
entirely without merit. The record provides ample evidence of his involvement with
PRC.
6. Admission of Letter
Weicksel’s argument that the Court erred by admitting a handwritten letter, in
which Weicksel admitted to involvement in the conspiracy, is also without merit. The
Government properly authenticated the letter (which, by the way, was found on Weicksel)
8
as written by him.
7. United States v. Santos
Finally, Weicksel argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), changes the outcome of his case and warrants a new trial.
In Santos, the Court held that, under the money laundering statute, the word “proceeds”
refers to profits, not gross receipts. Id. at 2031. In Weicksel’s case, the evidence clearly
established that the laundered money was profits. Therefore, this argument is frivolous.
* * * * *
We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
9