023388P.pdf   10/10/2005  USA  v.  Michael Alan Mooney
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  02-3388
   District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Judge Murphy, Author, for the Court En Banc]
   Criminal case - Sentencing Guidelines. For the court's opinion
   affirming defendant's conviction, see U.S. v. Mooney, 401 F.3d 940 (8th
   Cir. 2005). In calculating the amount of loss under the insider trader
   Sentencing Guideline, the commentary to Sec. 2B1.4 makes clear that the
   gain is the total profit actually made from the defendant's illegal
   securities transactions; as applied to this case, the gain was the amount
   defendant realized by his trading in call options while he had inside
   information; defendant's theory that he had no gain is rejected; applying
   Pirani's plain error analysis, defendant was not entitled to Booker relief
   as he could not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the district court
   would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory guideline
   scheme. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge
   Bright, dissenting, joined by Judge Lay.
  
023388P.pdf   03/28/2005  USA  v.  Michael Alan Mooney
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  02-3388
   District of Minnesota   
   Criminal case - criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to support 
   convictions for mail fraud, money laundering and securities fraud; 
   district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting government to 
   impeach defendant with a state tax conviction; case remanded under 
   Booker for further proceedings on the question of whether defendant 
   asked the court at trial to submit the issue of the amount of gain to the 
   jury. 
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Murphy, Lay and Bright, Circuit Judges] 
  
023388P.pdf   07/23/2004  USA  v.  Michael Alan Mooney
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  02-3388
   Dstrict of Minnesota   
   Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing Guidelines. In the
   unanimous portion of the court's opinion, Mooney's convictions for
   mail fraud, securities fraud and money laundering are affirmed, and the
   court remands the case to the United States District Court for
   reconsideration of the issues defendant has raised under Blakely v.
   Washington. In a separate opinion for the court, Judge Lay and Judge
   Bright hold the federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional
   because they violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have a jury
   find beyond a reasonable doubt and all facts legally necessary to his
   sentence; the court adopts the approach set forth in U.S. v. Croxford,
   2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12156 (D. Utah June 29, 2004) treating the
   Guidelines as non-binding but advisory, unless the defendant consents to
   a Guidelines sentence; on remand the district court should exercise its
   sound discretion to resentence defendant within the statutory minima and
   maxima of the offenses for which he was convicted. Judge Murphy
   dissents from the majority opinion holding the Guidelines
   unconstitutional. Judge Bright dissents from the per curiam opinion
   concerning interpretation of Guideline Section 2B1.4.
   [Per Curiam - Murphy, Lay and Bright, Circuit Judges]