In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 10-3241
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
M ATTHEW S COTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 09 CR 893-1—John W. Darrah, Judge.
A RGUED A UGUST 3, 2011—D ECIDED S EPTEMBER 21, 2011
Before B AUER, M ANION, and K ANNE, Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM. After a pyramid scheme that he had
maintained for nearly a decade came to light, Matthew
Scott pleaded guilty to one count of fraud, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 1341, and the district court sentenced him well above
the applicable guidelines range to 120 months. On ap-
peal, Scott argues that the district court erroneously ap-
plied a 4-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B)
for defrauding more than 50 victims; he also argues
2 No. 10-3241
that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We
affirm.
From 2000 until 2009, Scott operated a pyramid scheme
involving the buying and selling of high-speed com-
mercial printers, and defrauded at least 60 investors
of $4,500,000. Scott, the president and sole owner of a
printer-repair company called Glesco, Inc., raised
$28,000,000 by falsely representing to investors that he
purchased such printers and then resold them for a
substantial profit. He told investors that the printers
were being bought and sold; he also provided investors
with false purchase orders, invoices, promissory notes,
and other documents that he fabricated.
In a written plea agreement, Scott stipulated that his
offense conduct warranted a 4-level adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because “the offense involved
more than 50 victims . . . who sustained an actual loss.”
The presentence report applied the adjustment in cal-
culating a 63 to 78 month guidelines range. Scott did not
object to the PSR either in writing or at his sen-
tencing hearing; indeed at the hearing, Scott agreed
with the government that a within-range sentence was
appropriate.
The district judge heard testimony from several victims
of Scott’s scheme before concluding that the calculated
range did not adequately account for how Scott exploited
them, many of whom were friends and neighbors. The
judge accepted the PSR’s application of § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B),
but concluded that the calculated range did not ade-
quately reflect the number and duration of fraudulent
No. 10-3241 3
transactions in which Scott “duped” the victims. An
above-range sentence was needed, the judge said, to
promote respect for the law and deter future schemes
of this sort.
On appeal Scott argues that § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) should not
have been applied to him and that he should not have
been held accountable for defrauding more than 50 in-
vestors. The court, in his view, mistakenly counted in-
vestors who had not actually suffered a loss, and at most
the government could prove only that there were
45 victims. But Scott waived any such challenge. He
did not merely fail to object to the PSR; he stipulated in
his written plea agreement to defrauding more than
50 victims, and concurred at his sentencing hearing that
the adjustment applied, seeking a within-range sen-
tence because the applicable offense level adequately
“considered the number of people victimized . . . .” A
defendant who stipulates to facts as part of a written
plea agreement also waives challenges to the district
court’s reliance on those facts. See United States v. Siegler,
272 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Newman,
148 F.3d 871, 878 (7th Cir. 1998); see also United States
v. Serrano-Beauvaix, 400 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2005).
Scott also argues that his 120-month sentence, which
was substantially higher than the calculated 63 to
78 month range, is unreasonable. First, he asserts that
the sentence presumes an excessive degree of loss
suffered by three victims—Marc Calabria, Dan Palay, and
Paul Slavik. He points to the court’s statements at sen-
tencing that “Paul Slavik invested $180,000,” that Calabria
4 No. 10-3241
sent a letter stating that Scott “swindled [him] and his
family to the tune of $2.6 million,” and that Palay believed
that Scott “swindled me and my family out of hundreds
of thousands of dollars . . . .” It is true that these figures
(taken from a so-called “synopsis” of victim statements)
do not track those listed on the government’s “Loss/
Restitution Summary” spreadsheet identifying the
known victim investors and their loss amounts, but
any discrepancies here are harmless because the dis-
trict court applied only the figures on the restitution
spreadsheet and Scott stipulated to those figures at sen-
tencing. See United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 666
(7th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court explained that a
within-guidelines sentence for Scott was inadequate
because he exploited his personal relationships with
the victims over a long period of time; the court did
not mention the loss amount for any particular victim.
Scott relatedly asserts that the district court did not
adequately justify sentencing him above the high end of
the calculated range. But the judge identified several
factors that set Scott apart, including the extent to which
he took advantage of the trust of his friends and
neighbors, the lengthy period during which he con-
tinued to defraud people, and the large number of fraud-
ulent transactions he perpetrated. See United States
v. Schlueter, 634 F.3d 965, 967 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming
above-range sentence for defendant, a registered broker-
dealer, who engaged in fraudulent investment scheme
and bilked elderly clients out of more than $300,000);
United States v. Tockes, 530 F.3d 628, 634 (7th Cir. 2008)
(upholding above-range sentence for defendant who
No. 10-3241 5
fleeced elderly clients through his home construction
business); United States v. King, 506 F.3d 532, 536-37 (7th
Cir. 2007) (approving above-range sentence for defendant
who “pocket[ed] funds set aside for victims of Hurricane
Katrina”); United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 792-93
(7th Cir. 2006) (affirming above-range sentence based
on “the long-term duping of victims” and the defendant’s
“willingness to flout laws to gain his criminal objectives”).
A FFIRMED.
9-21-11