The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2003, D, an attorney licensed in California, began performing work for NewPoint Financial Services, Inc., a company owned by John Farahi. Farahi made private offerings of debentures. NewPoint did not register the debentures with the SEC, and while it took steps to make it appear that it was complying with federal securities law pertaining to unregistered securities-including hiring D to prepare private placement memoranda (PPMs) for the debentures-it in fact regularly failed to disclose material information to investors, in violation of the securities laws. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) began an examination of NewPoint. D made substantial changes to the 2003 PPM and provided the new, backdated version to FINRA without disclosing that any changes had been made. From 2005 to 2009, Farahi raised over $30 million. Farahi used the funds for payment of his own personal expenses, principal repayments to previous investors, and higher-risk futures options trading. In 2008, his loss of approximately $26 million from option trading significantly hampered his ability to repay NewPoint investors and creditors. He continued to assure investors that their funds were safe and began to raise additional money to pay back prior investors, sustain his personal expenses, and engage in options trading. In 2009, the SEC visited on a tip that Farahi was running a Ponzi scheme. Farahi and Tamman created more backdated versions of PPMs with added disclosures. Throughout the investigation, Tamman continued to edit backdated PPMs and promissory notes. In 2012, Tamman was indicted and charged with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, one count of accessory after the fact to mail fraud and securities law violations, five counts of altering documents to influence a federal investigation, and three counts of aiding and abetting Farahi's false testimony at an SEC deposition. The district court found D guilty, and in September 2013, sentenced him to 84 months of imprisonment, well below the calculated Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range of 151 to 188 months. D appealed. D contends in part that the dual application of the Broker-Dealer enhancement and the Special Skills enhancement was improper and barred by the Sentencing Guidelines.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.