Ninth Circuit panel reverses 168-month sentence of Michael Avenatti based on various guideline issues

As reported in this Courthouse News Service piece, “Michael Avenatti, who gained notoriety while representing adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her legal dispute with then-President Donald Trump, earned a rare legal victory Wednesday when a Ninth Circuit panel threw out his 14-year sentence for stealing millions of dollars from his former clients.” Here is more about the ruling:

It is longest of three prison sentences the 53-year-old Avenatti is currently serving. He was given four years for stealing money Daniels was due for a tell-all book, and 30 months for trying to extort Nike….

The three-judge panel found the trial judge in Orange County made a number of errors in sentencing the disbarred lawyer.  For one thing, in calculating the amount of money Avenatti stole from his clients, the judge “should have accounted for the value of his legal services and costs, as well as the value of certain payments he made to victims,” the appellate judges wrote in their 9-page ruling.

“By finding that Avenatti’s victims “lost” the full settlement value without accounting for Avenatti’s fees and costs, the district court enhanced Avenatti’s sentence based on pecuniary harm that did not occur, and did not ‘result from [Avenatti’s] offense,'” the judges wrote.

In addition, the panel found U.S. District Court Judge James Selna abused his discretion in refusing to “credit (and thus deduct from the losses) the value of payments Avenatti made to Geoffrey Johnson, Alexis Gardner, and Gregory Barela after he misappropriated their settlements. These too, should be accounted for on remand.”

U.S. Circuit Judges Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Roopali Desai, a Joe Biden appointee, made up the panel along with U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier, sitting with the panel by designation from the District of South Dakota. They did reject a few arguments Avenatti had made in his appeal, including the assertion that the Nike conviction wasn’t relevant conduct.

The full (unpublished) opinion is available at this link.