United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (1999)

F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit
JAN 19 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-6125
(D.C. No. CR-97-153-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
v.
MARY LOU TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
In this direct criminal appeal, defendant argues the district court erred in
sentencing her as a manager or supervisor of the offense,
see U.S.S.G.
3B1.1(b), and in upwardly departing from the sentence recommended by the

Guidelines.
Having jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
1
1291, this court reviews the sentencing courts legal determinations de novo,
and its factual findings for clear error,
see United States v. Valdez , 158 F.3d
1140, 1141 (10th Cir. 1998).
I.
DEFENDANTS ROLE IN OFFENSE

Defendant pled guilty to one count of knowingly and fraudulently using
anothers credit card to obtain things of value.
See 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5). The
presentence report indicates that defendant obtained credit card numbers from
guests staying at a hotel where she worked. Defendant, and others, then used
these numbers, without the cardholders authorization, to purchase merchandise.
Although the participants purchased merchandise in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
and Wichita, Kansas, they made the majority of their purchases through one
particular salesperson at a single furniture store in Oklahoma City.
The presentence report recommended the district court increase defendants
offense level three levels as a manager or supervisor of the offense,
see U.S.S.G.
3B1.1(b), because defendant obtained the credit card numbers, furnished them
to five or more participants in this scheme, and instructed those participants on
how to use the numbers to purchase merchandise.
See R. vol. 2 at 7, 28.
Defendant objected to this increase, asserting that, while she did obtain the
credit card numbers, she turned those numbers over to her boyfriend, who in turn
-2-
gave the numbers to the other participants, and instructed defendant and the
others on how and where to make purchases using those numbers. Defendant also
specifically objected to the presentence reports description of her role in the
Oklahoma City purchases. The district court overruled these objections, finding
that defendants
conduct does in fact warrant a supervisor or manager role in this
offense. She certainly orchestrated the offenses in terms of
appropriating credit card numbers from her place of employment and
furnishing them to others. She exercised decision-making authority.
She told them how to do it, told them where to go.
Id. , vol. 3 at 5.
On appeal, defendant argues that, in making this determination, the
sentencing court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1), which requires that, [f]or
each matter controverted, the court must make either a finding on the allegation
or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter
will not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing. We agree.
A district court may not satisfy its obligation under Rule 32(c)(1) by simply
adopting the presentence report as its findings.
See, e.g. , United States v.
Romero , 122 F.2d 1334, 1344 (10th Cir. 1997),
cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1310
(1998). Where, as here, the district court fails to comply with Rule 32, we must
remand for the court to either make the necessary findings and attach them to the
-3-
presentence report, or enter a declaration that it did not take the controverted
matters into account in sentencing the defendant.
II.
Romero , 122 F.3d at 1344.
UPWARD DEPARTURE
Despite our remand for resentencing, we must still review the sentencing
courts upward departure.
See United States v. Shumway , 112 F.3d 1413, 1424,
1427 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court departed upward from the Guidelines
recommended sentence, adding three points to defendants criminal history
category, after determining that this category otherwise significantly
underrepresented the seriousness of her criminal history or the likelihood that
defendant would commit further crimes.
See R. vol. 3 at 11. In reviewing the
upward departure, we inquire

(1) whether the factual circumstances supporting a departure are
permissible departure factors; (2) whether the departure factors relied
upon by the district court remove the defendant from the applicable
Guideline heartland thus warranting a departure; (3) whether the
record sufficiently supports the factual basis underlying the
departure; and (4) whether the degree of departure is reasonable.
United States v. Whiteskunk , No. 97-1407, 1998 WL 873042, at *4 (10th Cir.
Dec. 16, 1998) (quoting
United States v. Collins , 122 F.3d 1297, 1303 (10th Cir.
1997)). This court reviews the district courts decision to depart upward under a
unitary abuse-of-discretion analysis, reviewing the permissibility of the factors
upon which the district court based its departure without deference, but affording
-4-
substantial deference to the sentencing courts finding that the factors upon which
it relied warranted both a departure and the degree to which the court departed.
See id. at *4, *7, *8.
The factors upon which the district court based its decision to depart
upwardthat defendants criminal history points did not adequately reflect the
seriousness of her past criminal history and the likelihood that defendant would
again commit other crimesare permissible factors upon which to base an
upward departure.
See U.S.S.G. 4A1.3; see also id. 4A1.2, Comment 3;
Collins , 122 F.3d at 1303-04. So, too, were the specific bases upon which the
district court departed: the Guidelines allotted only three criminal history points,
ordinarily awarded for a single conviction and sentence of at least one year and
one month, see U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(a), for twenty-two convictions resulting in
concurrent ten-year sentences, only because these convictions were consolidated
for sentencing purposes; and the Guidelines failed to allot any criminal history
points for a pending state charge upon which defendant had agreed, but failed, to
make restitution.
See id. 4A1.3(b), (e); Shumway , 112 F.3d at 1428; United
States v. Lowe , 106 F.3d 1498, 1502 and n.7 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied , 117 S. Ct.
2494 (1997).
Further, the district court did not err in determining that these same reasons
took this case out of the heartland of cases addressed by 4A1.1(a).
-5-
See
Whiteskunk , 1998 WL 873042, at *2;
see also United States v. Williams , 922
F.2d 578, 581-82 (10th Cir. 1990).

The record supports the district courts findings concerning defendants
criminal history. Defendant does not specifically dispute the accuracy of the
presentence reports description of her prior criminal history.
See United States
v. Kalady , 941 F.2d 1090, 1099 (10th Cir. 1991). In addition, the record does not
support defendants assertion that the twenty-two convictions consolidated for
sentencing were factually related offenses.
There is no evidence of any common
scheme, and defendant committed these offenses against several different victims
over a six-month period of time.
See Williams , 922 F.2d at 579-80, 582-83
(separating, for sentencing purposes, distinct prior bank robbery convictions);

United States v. Bishop , 921 F.2d 1068, 1069, 1071-72 (10th Cir. 1990)
(separating three prior felonies occurring on separate days within thirty-day
period); United States v. Jackson , 903 F.2d 1313, 1317, 1318-19 (10th Cir.)
(separating three convictions for shooting with intent to kill, arising from same
incident, but involving three different victims),
rehg en banc granted on other
grounds , 921 F.2d 985, 988 (10th Cir. 1990);
see also United States v. White , 893
F.2d 276, 279 (10th Cir. 1990).

Lastly, the district courts degree of departure was reasonable. The court
awarded three criminal history points for each group of convictions involving the
-6-
same incident or victim, and for the pending state count upon which defendant
had agreed to pay restititution.
The district court clearly articulated the basis for
the degree of departure it imposed and, in doing so, referred to the analogous
Guideline provisions.
See Whiteskunk , 1998 WL at 873042, at *8-*9;
Lowe , 106
F.3d at 1503; see also, e.g. , United States v. Flinn , 18 F.3d 826, 829 (10th Cir.
1994) (assignment of criminal history category points for past criminal conduct is
reasonable methodology consistent with Guidelines goals of uniformity and
proportionality). The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in
departing upward from the Guidelines recommended sentencing range to the
degree it did.
We, nevertheless, VACATE defendants sentence, in light of the
sentencing
courts violation of Rule 32(c)(1), and REMAND to the district court for
resentencing.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-7-

United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Taylor, 10th Cir. (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F I L E D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

3B1.1(b), and in upwardly departing from the sentence recommended by the

Having jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C.

see United States v. Valdez , 158 F.3d

1140, 1141 (10th Cir. 1998).

DEFENDANTS ROLE IN OFFENSE

anothers credit card to obtain things of value.

See 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5). The

See R. vol. 2 at 7, 28.

See, e.g. , United States v.

Romero , 122 F.2d 1334, 1344 (10th Cir. 1997),

cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1310

Romero , 122 F.3d at 1344.

courts upward departure.

See United States v. Shumway , 112 F.3d 1413, 1424,

See R. vol. 3 at 11. In reviewing the

upward departure, we inquire

United States v. Collins , 122 F.3d 1297, 1303 (10th Cir.

See U.S.S.G. 4A1.3; see also id. 4A1.2, Comment 3;

See id. 4A1.3(b), (e); Shumway , 112 F.3d at 1428; United

cert. denied , 117 S. Ct.

Whiteskunk , 1998 WL 873042, at *2;

see also United States v. Williams , 922

F.2d 578, 581-82 (10th Cir. 1990).

See United States

There is no evidence of any common

See Williams , 922 F.2d at 579-80, 582-83

(separating, for sentencing purposes, distinct prior bank robbery convictions);

rehg en banc granted on other

grounds , 921 F.2d 985, 988 (10th Cir. 1990);

see also United States v. White , 893

F.2d 276, 279 (10th Cir. 1990).

The district court clearly articulated the basis for

See Whiteskunk , 1998 WL at 873042, at *8-*9;

You might also like

See Whiteskunk , 1998 WL at 873042, at 8-9;