U.S. District Judge Sim Lake resentenced Jamie Olis to six years in prison this afternoon (Olis has already served about 2.5 years in prison) in the latest chapter of the three year saga that has become arguably the starkest example government’s dubious criminalization of business during the post-Enron era.

During the hearing, Judge Lake read portions of a lengthy opinion that he has written on the Olis resentencing. Although Judge Lake found that a sentencing guidelines sentence for Olis would be in a range of 151-188 months based on an estimated $79 million damage amount (the intended tax benefit to Dynegy from Project Alpha), he concluded that Olis deserved a non-guidelines sentence because of Olis’ exemplary character, the fact that Olis did not personally gain from Project Alpha, and that Dynegy did not fail as a going concern as a result of the transaction.

Judge Lake also concluded that the extensive publicity relating to Olis’ case and other recent white collar business cases has sufficiently informed the business world of the severity of fraudulent business conduct that principles of general deterrence do not require a guidelines sentence.

Although six years is a harsh sentence, my initial reaction to Judge Lake’s decision (before reading it) is that it would be very difficult to mount an effective appeal on Olis’ behalf to reduce the sentence.

On the other hand, the prosecution — exhibiting a lack of judgment that has become routine during this era of criminalizing business — announced at the end of the hearing that it intends to appeal Judge Lake’s opinion to the Fifth Circuit.

Frankly, I hope the government does appeal the sentence. That utter lack of prosecutorial discretion might be the only way to prompt the Fifth Circuit to take a whack at reducing Olis’ sentence further.

Update: Doug Berman, Ellen Podgor and Larry Ribstein, all of whom have blogged extensively on the Olis case, add their initial thoughts.

Professor Podgor’s point about the disparity between Olis’ sentence and the sentences of his co-defendants who copped pleas is particularly insightful.

Judge Lake notes in this opinion that this disparity in treatment between cooperating defendants and defendants who assert their innocence is a mechanism that Congress has adopted to facilitate cooperation in federal criminal investigations. But what looks good in theory has become ugly in practice.

Given the government’s overwhelming resource advantage and the willingness of prosecutors to appeal to jurors’ resentment to obtain convictions, asserting innocence in white collar criminal cases has become a risk that is too huge to take.

US District Judge Sim Lake announced yesterday that Jamie Olis will be resentenced on Friday at 2 p.m., almost a year after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Lake’s previous 24+ year sentence.

As we await another chapter in what has emerged as one of the most egregious injustices of the government’s criminalization of business interests during the post-Enron era, the following are a sampling of my posts on the Olis saga since I began following the case two and a half years ago:

My first post on the sad case of Jamie Olis (March 24, 2004), a little over a month after the beginning of this blog;

The WSJ’s Holman Jenkins notices the sad case of Jamie Olis (March 31, 2004);

Larry Ribstein addresses the Olis case for the first time, marking the beginning of this fine scholar’s writings in the blawgosphere on the dubious nature of the government’s regulation-of-business-through-criminalization policy (April 7, 2004);

Olis is ordered to report to prison on May 20, 2004 (May 5, 2004);

The Wall Street Journal runs its first thorough article on the Olis case (May 20, 2004);

Novelist and former prosecutor Mark Costello decries the Olis sentence and the increasing criminalization of business interests in the New York Times (June 7, 2004);

The Los Angeles Times weighs in with a thorough article on the Olis case (July 12, 2004);

Sentencing scholar Douglas Berman takes up the Olis case, beginning his excellent blawgosphere analysis of the unjust nature of the sentence (July 16, 2004);

The sad case of Olis gets even sadder as he is transferred to a prison far away from his wife and young daughter (January 31, 2005);

The government’s misrepresentation of the market losses in the Enron Nigerian Barge trial mirrors the prosecution’s misrepresentation of the market loss involved in the Olis case (April 20, 2005);

Would Olis have fared better had he been tried and sentenced in Russia? (June 1, 2005);

While Theodore Siphol goes home, Bill Fuhs and Jamie Olis go to jail (June 24, 2005);

The Olis case is lost amidst the myopia of the NY Times (September 16, 2005);

Embezzling $43 million and copping a plea is better than embezzling nothing and asserting one’s innocence at trial (October 16, 2005);

Finally, some justice for Jamie Olis as the Fifth Circuit reverses his 24+ year sentence (November 1, 2005);

The Chronicle’s business columnist Loren Steffy — who generally supports the government’s regulation-of-business-through-criminalization policy — says that the government has gone too far in the Olis case (November 24, 2005);

The Justice Department’s initial reaction to the reversal of Olis’ sentence is that he should be resentenced to “only” 15 years (December 21, 2005);

The Justice Department drags its feet in regard to the Olis resentencing (January 18, 2006);

Short-selling and the genesis of the case against Olis (February 4, 2006);

Hope for Olis on the key market loss issue (February 27, 2006);

Martin Frankel’s sentence exposes the absurdity of Olis’ original sentence (March 24, 2006);

“Prison time is slow time” (June 22, 2006);

More hope for sanity in the resentencing of Olis (August 1, 2006);

Professor Grundfest takes on the market loss issue in the Olis case (August 22, 2206);

The Justice Department continues misrepresenting the market losses in the Olis case (September 6, 2006) while The Economist weighs in on the market loss issue (September 19, 2006);

The prosecution asked Professor Grundfest what? (September 13, 2006); and

The Olis resentencing hearing concludes (September 14, 2006).

Update: As usual, Larry Ribstein has a most insightful observation about the Olis resentencing:

The government has built much of its scheme for putting business in jail on this unfortunate young father. For more than two years, prosecutors could use the Olis example to soften up defendants for pleas and cooperation, sort of like a murdering despot pointing to his display of his enemies’ spiked heads. A significant reduction in Olis’s sentence would not only be a welcome bit of justice for Jamie Olis, but an important symbolic turn in the government’s questionable campaign.

Update 2: Olis was resentenced to six years.

Update 3: Olis’ ordeal continues (December 10, 2006).

Update 4: Did the Bureau of Prisons forget about Olis (February 1, 2007)? And Olis finally receives a ticket to Bastrop (February 11, 2007).

Update 5: Troubling information is revealed regarding the DOJ’s interference with the Olis defense (May 28, 2007).

Update 6: The Olis connection to the KPMG criminal case (June 13, 2007).

Update 7: Information on what really happened during Olis’ criminal trial finally starts to come out (October 9, 2007).

Update 8: Did the prosecution violate its Brady obligation to turnover exculpatory evidence to the Olis defense (December 4, 2007)?

Update 9: Why is the United States imprisoning people such as Jamie Olis (April 27, 2008)?

Update 10: This is criminal justice (Aug 9, 2008)?

Update 11: People who live in glass houses . . . (Aug 26, 2008).

Update 12: But what about the case in which the threat worked? (December 5, 2008).

Update 13:Olis as a casualty of the criminalization-of-business lottery (January 13, 2009).

Update 14: Reflecting on astonishing abuses of power (August 10, 2009).

Update 15: Jamie Olis and the trial penalty (October 27, 2009).

Update 16: The incalculable cost of a misguided criminal prosecution (January 5, 2010).