Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10283/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Lee Cleaton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10283

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MARK LEE CLEATON, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:15-CR-3-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Mark Lee Cleaton appeals the 80-month sentence imposed following his 

jury conviction of four counts of wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Cleaton

argues that the district court clearly erred by applying the two-level 

sophisticated means enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) (2015) to his 

offense level. 

 Cleaton was convicted of wire fraud spanning nearly a year, from August 

2009 through July 2010, in connection with actions that he took as the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10283 Document: 00513846949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2017
No. 16-10283

2 

President and Director of North American Capital Investment Fund, LP 

(NACIF) and the sole owner and managing member of North American 

Capital, LLC (NAC). The loss amount caused by his actions, calculated from 

three schemes of conduct involving NACIF and NAC, was more than two 

million dollars. 

Cleaton used both NACIF and NAC to entice money from investors, 

while misrepresenting that their money would be invested in legitimate real 

estate investment funds and/or transactions. He then used investor-supplied 

money for illegitimate purposes, such as paying personal expenses, making 

Ponzi-type payments to investors/lenders, and funding other businesses. 

Cleaton used numerous bank accounts to commit the offense and, with the 

assistance of an attorney, prepared fraudulent documents to legitimize his 

actions and entice investors. He took actions that were designed to conceal the 

fraudulent nature of his business and make the “investments” he offered 

appear legitimate. Under these circumstances, the district court did not 

clearly err in applying the § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) enhancement. See § 2B1.1, 

comment. (n.9(B)); United States v. Conner, 537 F.3d 480, 492 (5th Cir. 2008). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10283 Document: 00513846949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2017