Court downplays skills of cheaters

Thursday, April 1, 2004 | 11:19 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Cheating casinos by crimping or marking cards and spotting cards with exceptional eyesight are not special skills that allow an increased prison term to be imposed on a person, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered federal District Judge Roger Hunt of Las Vegas to resentence Jing Bing Liang, who was a member of a gang that cheated casinos in Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe and Atlantic City.

In one case, the group of five won $1.5 million by peeking at the card in a shoe in a baccarat game at a Las Vegas casino in November 1994. The casino was not identified.

Liang pleaded guilty in May 2002 to conspiracy to participate in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering by cheating. Two counts of money laundering were dropped when he entered his plea.

Federal law provides that a prison term can be enhanced if a person used a "special skill" that "facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense." The term "special skill" was defined as a skill not possessed by members of the public and requiring substantial education or training.

Government lawyers told Hunt that Liang possessed a "special skill" due to his "extraordinary eyesight," which he used to peek at cards in the shoe.

Hunt agreed and said very few members of the public have extraordinary eyesight and the skill to cheat at cards. He said some training was necessary to be as successful as the gang was.

The guideline for sentencing on the conspiracy counts was a term of 21 to 27 months in prison. Hunt moved that up two levels to provide for a possible term of 27 to 33 months. Liang was sentenced to 27 months in prison in October 2002.

Liang appealed, saying his keen eyesight was not a special skill.

The court, in a decision written by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, said: "No matter how much it contributed to his ability to peek at cards, Liang's extraordinarily acute vision cannot be described as a skill."

The court said a special skill requires substantial education or training.

"Liang suggests that peeking, crimping or daubing is relatively simple, and that anyone could learn to do it in a short of amount of time," wrote O'Scannlain.

The court said Hunt made insufficient findings to justify that folding or smearing a small bit of petroleum jelly on a card were special skills that allowed the sentence to be increased.

Liang's attorney, Todd Leventhal of Las Vegas, said the sentence enhancement was preposterous, and that the government never tested Liang's eyes to determine whether he had "extraordinary eyesight."

"Here you got a guy who was cheating and he pleaded guilty to cheating," Leventhal said.

At least one other gambler convicted in the scandal had a sentence enhanced based on "extraordinary vision," Leventhal said.

Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Las Vegas, said the office had no comment.

The court ruled that such enhancements are usually doled out to lawyers, pilots, doctors, other licensed professions and highly trained individuals like chemists using their trades to commit crimes.

A trained chemist, for example, could receive the enhancement if convicted of producing methamphetamine.

"Unlike a doctor or lawyer gone bad, Liang abused no societal trust by appropriating an otherwise positive education investment," O'Scannlain wrote for the court.

The court vacated Liang's sentence and sent the case back to Hunt for resentencing in line with the opinion.

The Associated Press

contributed to this story.