Case ID: f-appx_20/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth David GRUBBS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 1, 2001.
    Bruce R. Williamson, Jr., Williamson & Toscano, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Ruth E. Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, VA, for ap-pellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth David Grubbs appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to two counts of making false statements to obtain a loan, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West 2000), and one count of using a fraudulent Social Security number, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp.2001). Grubbs received concurrent custodial sentences of one year and one day on each count. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On appeal, Grubbs challenges only the district court’s two-level enhancement of his offense level based upon the nature of his fraudulent activity under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Fl.l(b)(2) (2000). Specifically, § 2Fl.l(b)(2) calls for a two-level enhancement when “the offense involved (A) more than minimal planning, or (B) a scheme to defraud more than one victim.” Id. (emphasis added). We review this claim for clear error. See United States v. Aramo-ny, 166 F.3d 655, 663 (4th Cir.1999).

We find the district court’s application of this enhancement proper. The Sentencing Guidelines commentary notes that “ ‘[m]ore than minimal planning’ is deemed present in any case involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance was purely opportune.” USSG § 1B1.1, comment. (n.l(f)). Here, Grubbs provided a falsified schedule of assets he knew would be used by his partner to support numerous loan applications for their joint venture. Furthermore, Grubbs knew the two banks from which he obtained the loans in question had that schedule as part of their loan documentation. Moreover, as the district court noted, Grubbs supplied the same false information to an accounting firm in order to obtain an accounting statement on its letterhead, and thereby “add a patina of legitimacy” to those falsehoods in future loan applications. (JA 114). In light of Grubbs’ repetitive reliance on the falsified schedule and his effort to conceal his fraud, we find the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement under § 2Fl.l(b)(2) is not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we affirm Grubbs’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.