Attempts by husband-and-wife defendants convicted in an elaborate Florida immigration fraud case to seek relief from a money judgment and reduce their prison sentences have fallen flat before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Rosa Enedia Pazos Cingari and Domenico Cingari from Lakeland ran a scheme that helped hundreds of undocumented immigrants obtain Florida driver's licenses using fake immigration forms.

They generated "a small fortune," or $740,000 in about four years, according to the ruling, which said the defendants "had apparently mastered the art of obtaining a key Department of Homeland Security document formally known as a Form I-797C Notice of Action, but nicknamed 'the torch' for its torch watermark."

But customers paying between $500 and $800 per application didn't know the Cingaris were obtaining that watermarked form by filling out other federal immigration documents on their behalf, often changing information on the forms without their knowledge.

In some cases, they falsely reported that applicants had been persecuted or manufactured a false identity, according to the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, which said several applicants were deported because the couple failed to tell them the federal government had requested an interview or more information.

U.S. District Judge Charlene E. Honeywell in the Middle District of Florida sentenced Rosa Cingari to 12 years and seven months, and Domenico Cingari to eight years and one month.

The Eleventh Circuit had to decide whether that was too harsh, and whether it was right for them to be held jointly and separately liable for repaying the money they illegally obtained.

The Cingaris argued they should have been sentenced under §2L2.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, used for falsifying immigration forms, which would have meant about 30 to 37 months in prison. Instead, they were sentenced under §2B1.1 for fraud and deceit, which carries heftier prison terms.

The appellate panel didn't agree with their interpretation.

"Imagine that the Cingaris found a way to defraud their victims using mail services, but had not falsified immigration forms," the ruling said. "They would probably be sentenced for mail fraud under § 2B1.1, with its harsher range. But they would have us impose a lighter sentence here because they committed a second criminal act of lying on immigration forms. Ordinarily, criminals are not so lucky as to receive a reduced sentence for piling on more criminal activity."

The appeals court found it was bound by prior ruling in United States v. Baldwin, which upheld sentencing guidelines in a similar scenario.

"That case is this case in every meaningful respect," the ruling said. "Like in Baldwin, the 'heart' of the Cingaris' scheme was not simply falsifying federal forms; instead, their 'goal was to enrich' themselves through a fraudulent scheme, cheating aliens out of several hundred thousand dollars."

The Cingaris had pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court case that held a defendant couldn't be found jointly and separately liable for ill-gotten gains. But that case involved an employee-employer relationship, whereas this one featured a couple who worked together, the court said.

"Under these circumstances, the Cingaris have failed to establish that they did not mutually obtain, possess, and benefit from their criminal proceeds," the opinion said.

Because the defendants didn't initially object to this issue at sentencing, the appellate panel had to find the lower court made an obvious, prejudicial error in order to reduce the sentences.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Britt C. Grant wrote the ruling, backed by Judge Adalberto Jordan and Senior Sixth Circuit Judge Eugene E. Siler Jr., sitting by special designation.

Domenico Cingari's trial attorney, Thomas Burns of Burns P.A. in Tampa, said via email, "We're still evaluating the opinion and whether there might be any basis to seek further appellate review."

Rosa Cingari's trial attorney, Dane Chase of Chase Law in St. Petersburg, did not immediate respond to a request for comment.

|

Read the ruling:

More appeals: