Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06139/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LaDena Dunning
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~nited States Court of Appeals Tenth C!.-~uit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

. No. 90-6139. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LA DENA DUNNING 1 ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

,n.PR 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. CR-89-233-P) 

Robert G. McCampbell, Assistant United States Attorney (T~othy D. 

Leonard, u.s. Attorney, and T~othy w. Ogilvie, Assistant u.s. 

Attorney, on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Duke Holden, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 1 
In a multi-count indictment LaDena Dunning was charged in 

three counts as follows: In Count 1 Dunning was charged with 

conspiring with her.mother, Marilyn Kelley, and others to commit 

bank fraud and mail fraud in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 371; in 

Count 11 -Dunning .was charged with mail fraud.in_violation of 18 

u.s.c. S 1341 and 2; and in Count 12 Dunning was charged with witness intimidation in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1512(b)(3). Dunning 

was tried jointly with her mother, Marilyn Kelley. A j~ 

convicted Dunning on all three counts and, pursuant to the 

Sentencing Guidelines, she was sentenced to imprisonment for 

forty-six months on each of the three counts, said sentences to be 

.served concurrently. Dunning now appeals her several convictions 

and sentences. 1 

At trial, Dunning did not testify nor were any witnesses 

called in her behalf. This is mentioned merely to show that all 

evidence adduced at trial was presented by the government. It was 

the government's theory of the case that Kelley and Dunning 

organized a business entity known as Shannon Financial in which 

they were both corporate officers, and that through the use of 

this company they conspired to commit bank fraud and mail fraud by 

obtaining loans from various banks and from I.T.T. Financial 

Corporation by means of false pretenses. 

1 Marilyn Kelley was convicted on ten counts and by separate 

appeal sought reversal of her convictions and sentences. Except 

for the district court's restitution order, Kelley's convictions 

and sentences have now been affirmed contemporaneously with the 

filing of the present opinion. See United States v. Kelley, Nos. 

90-6136, 90-6148 (lOth Cir. filed Apr. ____ , 1991). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 2 
As indicated, Count 11 

violation of 18 u.s.c. S 1341. 

charged Dunning with mail fraud in 

Specifically, Dunning was charged 

with obtaining a loan from I.T.T. in the amount of $40,140 through 

fraudulent representations and that for the purpose of executing 

her scheme to- defraud, she -caused to be-placed in the United 

States mail a written notation of loan approval which was 

delivered by the United States Postal Service from I.T.T.'s parent 

office in Englewood, Colorado to I.T.T.'s local office in Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. On appeal, Dunning contends that her conviction 

on Count 11 can not be sustained because there was insufficient 

proof that the loan application approval in question was actually 

placed in the mail and for the additional reason that the loan 

application approval was not necessary to obtain the loan. 

Steve Brown, vice president of operations for I.T.T. in the 

Englewood, Colorado office, testified that loan applications 

received from the local Oklahoma City, Oklahoma office were, when 

approved, invariably sent by mail back to the Oklahoma City office. On cross-examination, ·Brown conceded that several business 

documents were faxed or sent by Federal Express or other courier, 

but he still insisted, on redirect examination, that loan application approvals were returned to the local Oklahoma City office by 

mail. Proof of mailing by showing an established business 

practice to use the mails is sufficient circumstantial evidence to 

require submission of the mailing issue to a jury. United States 

v. Sumnicht, 823 F.2d 13, 15 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. 

Brickley, 426 F.2d 680, 684 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 u.s. 828 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 3 
(1970); United States v. Doran, 299 F.2d 511, 514 (7th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 370 u.s. 925 (1962). 

Counsel also argues that any use of the mails must be in 

furtherance of the scheme to defraud in order to come within the 

mail fraud ·Statute.and suggests that-Dunning obtained the loan in 

question before the loan application was approved by I.T.T. in 

Englewood, Colorado and before it was mailed back to the local 

I.T.T. office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. However, in a mail 

fraud case it is not necessary that the mailing predate the 

defendant's receipt of the loan proceeds. United States v. 

Sampson, 371 u.s. 75, 80-81 (1962); United States v. Bottom, 638 

F.2d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 1981); Sparrow v. United States, 402 F.2d 

826, 829 (lOth Cir. 196~8) • Further, mailings which facilitate 

concealment of a fraudulent scheme meet the "furtherance" requirement. United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 1463, 1466 (lOth Cir. 

1990) and United States v. Rauhoff, 525 F.2d 1170, 1176 (7th Cir. 

1975). In the instant case there was testimony that if the approved loan application was not in the file at the local Oklahoma 

City office, there would be an internal investigation of the 

matter. 

In sum, we believe the evidence concerning the use of the 

mail and whether the use was in furtherance of the false scheme 

was such as to require submission of those issues to the jury. 

Counsel next argues that an essential element of Count 11 was 

that I.T.T. suffered an "actual pecuniary loss." In this regard, 

the evidence was that Dunning did obtain the loan in question and 

there is nothing to indicate repayment. In any event, the gist of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 4 
Count 11 is devising a scheme to defraud with a purpose of executing the scheme~ the ultimate success or failure of the scheme is 

~aterial. United States v. Stewart, 872 F.2d 957 (lOth Cir. 

1989). 2 

As to the conspiracy conviction, counsel argues that a 

reversal of Dunning's conviction on mail fraud (Count 11) requires 

a reversal on the conspiracy charge. The answer to that argument 

is that we are not reversing Dunning's conviction on Count 11. 

Counsel next argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

convict Dunning of witness intimidation. Count 12 charged Dunning 

with intimidating and threatening to use physical force with an 

intent to hinder, delay and prevent Harold Ferry, Denise Buettner 

or Troy Smith from communicating to law .enforcement officers 

information relating to the commission or possible commission of a 

federal crime in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 1512(b)(3). The 

evidence was that when Ferry and the others were present at a 

meeting with Dunning (Ferry had a concealed recorder on his person 

at the meeting), Dunning, when talking about Claudia Lamb who was 

not present at the meeting, said that if Claudia Lamb caused her 

mother to go to jail, "she will not be on the face of this earth 

any longer. That goes for her or anyone else. . " Based on that 

evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that Dunning was 

threatening not only Claudia Lamb, but "anyone else" who would 

cause her mother to go to jail. Such would constitute a threat 

2 Counsel's reliance on McNally v. United States, 483 u.s. 350 

(1987) is misplaced. There the Supreme Court held that the mail 

fraud statute does not extend "to the intangible right of the 

citizenry to good government." Id. at 356. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 5 
against Ferry and the others who were present at the meeting. 

This threat would conceivably tend to make them think twice before 

going to law enforcement officers and giving information concerning Dunning's mother. Under 18 u.s.c. S 1512(b)(3) a threat does 

not necessarily .have to-succeed and-cause the person threatened to 

refrain from giving information to law enforcement officers. See 

United States v. Capo, 791 F.2d 1054, 1069 (2d Cir. 1986). United 

States v. Maggitt, 789 F.2d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Furthermore, the jury instructions were such as to preclude the 

possibility that the jury convicted Dunning of making threats 

against Ferry because of the fact that she previously had made 

threats against Claudia Lamb. 

In addition to the forty-six month ter.m of imprisonment, the 

district court also entered a restitution order requiring Dunning 

to pay to the several banks and to I.T.T. the sum of $192,092. 

Counsel argues that there is nothing in the record to support such 

order. We agree. There is no indication of any present ability 

to pay anything. Nor is there·anything to indicate that after her 

release from prison, Dunning would have an "earning potential" 

which would enable her to comply with a restitution order of this 

magnitude. See United States v. Rogat, ____ F.2d ____ (lOth Cir. 

1991). 

The restitution order is reversed. Otherwise, the judgments 

and sentences are affirmed. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6139 Document: 01019298330 Date Filed: 04/08/1991 Page: 6