Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-06-04018/USCOURTS-ca3-06-04018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melissa Hicks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-4018

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MELISSA HICKS,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 05-cr-00019E)

District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 11, 2008

Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 2, 2008)

 

OPINION

 

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge

Appellant Melissa Hicks appeals her sentence of 60 months of imprisonment

imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Case: 06-4018 Document: 0031677945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2008
2

Specifically, Hicks alleges that the District Court erred in determining the amount of loss

attributable to her conduct and that the District Court improperly imposed an upward

departure based on the number of her prior criminal convictions.

Because we write exclusively for the parties and the parties are familiar with the

facts and proceedings below, we will not revisit them here.

I.

The District Court determined that the loss attributable to Hicks’ criminal conduct

was $40,407.10. Because the amount of loss attributed to Hicks’ conduct was in excess of

$30,000, the Sentencing Guidelines called for a six level increase in her base offense

level. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Hicks contests the District Court’s determination as to the

loss, arguing that the District Court improperly included in its calculation counterfeit

checks that Hicks did not admit to passing and that the government had not proved she

had passed.

In fashioning an appropriate sentence, a district court may consider conduct not

charged in the indictment nor pleaded to by the defendant. United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 251-252 (2005) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt., background (“Conduct that is

not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into

determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.”)). A district court applies the

preponderance of the evidence standard to conduct relevant to sentencing enhancements

under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 568 (3d Cir. 2007)

(en banc). This Court “must accept the District Court’s factual finding as to the amount of

Case: 06-4018 Document: 0031677945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2008
3

loss unless it is clearly erroneous.” United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d 176, 194 (3d Cir.

2003).

In this case, Hicks pleaded guilty to passing checks in the names of Stacy Childs,

Navada Green and Yvette Middleton, to conspiring with known and unknown individuals

to commit the offenses of uttering or possessing counterfeit checks, and to possession or

use of five or more identification documents for unlawful purposes. Although the

indictment did not charge Hicks with passing checks in the names of Eldora Harris,

Robyn English or Joyce Hunt, the government presented evidence that these checks were

part of the same fraudulent scheme carried out by Hicks and her co-conspirators. The

Harris check bore the same telephone number as the checks that Hicks admitted to

passing. Also, the checks used in the loss calculation were passed at the same stores and

in the same general locations as the checks to which Hicks admitted guilt. As the

government’s theory involved a scheme among several individuals to pass counterfeit

checks and the Harris, English and Hunt checks bore sufficient similarities to those Hicks

admitted passing, the District Court did not err in determining that these checks could be

included in the loss calculation. 

II.

Hicks also contends that the District Court improperly considered the number of

her prior criminal convictions, rather than the nature and severity of these prior offenses,

when it decided to impose a sentence in excess of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range. With an offense level of 10 and 37 criminal history points, the Sentencing

Case: 06-4018 Document: 0031677945 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2008
4

Guidelines provided for a sentence of 24-30 months of imprisonment. The District Court

departed from this advisory range, however, and sentenced Hicks to 60 months of

imprisonment.

The Sentencing Guidelines permit an upward departure “[i]f reliable information

indicates that the defendant’s criminal history category substantially under-represents the

seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will

commit other crimes . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1). In this case, the District Court

specifically mentioned Hicks’ extensive criminal history, including her forty-one prior

convictions for theft and forgery crimes, and Hicks’ pattern of “taking money by

deception” when it determined that an upward departure was warranted. App. 105.

Indeed, the District Court commented that Hicks’ conduct was “no different than reaching

right into the merchant’s cash register and pulling it out, pulling out the cash.” Id. We are

satisfied that the District Court properly considered the nature of Hicks’ prior convictions

in determining that the sentence established by the Sentencing Guidelines underrepresented her criminal history or under-represented the likelihood that she will commit

further crimes. We are also satisfied that the sentence of 60 months of imprisonment was

a reasonable one under these circumstances.

* * * * *

We have considered all of the contentions presented by the parties and have

concluded that no further discussion is necessary. 

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Case: 06-4018 Document: 0031677945 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2008
5

Case: 06-4018 Document: 0031677945 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2008