United States v. Sadolsky
234 F.3d 938
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Number 99-5780
Before Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich
Decided on December 11, 2000

Relevancy of the Case: Gambling disorder as a defence for lowering the offence level in a case of conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
• The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Section 5K2.13)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The defendant was the regional carpet manager at Sears Roebuck & Co. He accessed a work computer and fraudulently credited amounts for return merchandise to his personal account thirteen times.
• This resulted in a loss of $39,477.91 to the company. Moreover, he also performed a fraudulent credit transaction to his VISA card using the Sears cash register.
• This came to the company’s attention, and they reported the fraud to the US Secret Service office in Louisville.
• When the Secret Service interviewed him, he admitted to the charge of defrauding Sears to pay off his gambling debt. Under a Plea Agreement (PA), he pled guilty.
• The prosecution charged him with seven counts of a felony due to violations of various relevant provisions. This resulted in an offence level of 12.
• The trial court reduced the offence level by 2 under Section 5K2.13 of the US Sentencing Guidelines. In the present case, this order was appealed.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The government’s counsel argued that the defendant’s offence resulted in a more than $20,000 loss. The defendant did more than minimal planning. Thus, the applicable offence level is 12. The counsel further submitted that downgrading the offence level is not appropriate and relied on several cases to support their argument.
• The defendant’s counsel argued that he had a compulsive habit. To support this contention, the counsel called three witnesses. He further contended that the defendant was not in the right mental capacity while committing fraud. He also relied on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which lists pathological gambling as an impulse control disorder.

Opinion of the Bench

• The District Court erred in downgrading the level offence by 2 levels under Section 5K2.13. Gambling disorder is not a valid ground for invoking this provision.
• The Court of Appeal can review every abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the prosection’s appeal.