Defendants' securities fraud sentences are affirmed where: 1) the district court was required to resentence defendants de novo following the reversal of a portion of defendants' convictions by another panel of the court of appeals; 2) based on the district court's alternative ruling, under which it did sentence defendants de novo, their sentences were reasonable. Also, there was no error with regard to denials of defendants' motions for a new trial and to compel discovery.
Argued: May 5, 2009
Decided: October 5, 2009
Opinion by Judge Cabranes
Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell & Qualseth, P.A., Lawrence, KS
Neal K. Katyal, Morgan Legal Consulting, Washington, D.C.
William F. Johnson and Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorneys, New York, NY