@th3j35t3r yeahhhhhhh tfw the bar is set so low it's buried

@malice Good to see you around these parts btw 👍

@th3j35t3r @malice
Be a total freakin’ rockstar from Mars

https://youtu.be/9QS0q3mGPGg

#cosomusic
Does this even count?

@ellewoodsruns Hence "up to".

He's also still up for prosecution in another district, as well. If convicted there, that won't be served concurrently.

@malice No, really. It's not "up to" that long. It's "up to" the longest term for any one of the charges he was convicted. This is per the guidelines, which **require** certain crimes to be "grouped," and thus served concurrently, instead of consecutively. All of the crimes in this case require grouping. One of those he was charged with was a 20 max, but I don't think he was convicted of it. But even if he was, it will be reduced from 20.

@ellewoodsruns Yeah no sorry I'm not revising the "up to" statement in a funny toot because you're taking it overly literal.

@malice As a prosecutor, yeah, I tend to take the sentencing guidelines literally.

The Court is required to group certain crimes. As such, it's just not possible to get to 60, thus it's not possible for it to be "up to" 60.

The 5 tax fraud must be grouped.

The 2 bank fraud must be grouped.

Assuming the court doesn't group tax and bank, he's got 3 separate groupings (adding failure to report) --> sopping wet, abso max, it's 15-ish. If they group tax and bank, to 2 groups, it's less than 10.

@ellewoodsruns Also worth noting that at age 69, a 10 year sentence could well be life.

@malice I don't disagree.

The reason I raised this is because folks are saying he's facing "up to" anywhere from 60 to 280 years (I've heard quite the range). These numbers put the public in a position of expecting a ginormous sentence, which will never happen, can't happen, not because of discretion, but because of required groupings and max sentences for groupings.

False hope and excitement that gets burst sucks, but that's what lots of these numbers being bandied about do.