Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04077/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David W. Goldman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4077

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Western 

* District of Arkansas.

David W. Goldman, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

 Filed: May 19, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

David Goldman pled guilty to one count of impeding bankruptcy proceedings

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1509. The district court1

 sentenced him to ten months

imprisonment and ordered him to pay $106,450 in restitution. On appeal Goldman

argues that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under USSG § 3B1.3 for abuse

of a position of public trust. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-4077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046786
2

 Goldman has since surrendered his license to practice law. 

-2-

Goldman, a practicing attorney,2

 was indicted in June 2004 for conspiracy to

commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. The charges arose from his

participation in a scheme to help his client Patrick Miller fraudulently obtain a

$300,000 loan from Merchants and Planters Bank. He later pled guilty to one count

of impeding bankruptcy proceedings by giving false and misleading testimony to the

bankruptcy court. The government offered evidence at the plea hearing which showed

that after Goldman learned about financial problems Miller was having with his boat

business, he gave Miller a $500,000 check drawn from his client trust account and

then directed Miller to obtain a loan to reimburse him. Other evidence offered at the

hearing showed that while Goldman was acting as Miller's attorney he provided

assurance letters to the lending bank about Miller's collateral, filed a bankruptcy

petition for Miller, and gave false testimony to the bankruptcy court regarding the

circumstances surrounding the $500,000 check and his own receipt of $300,000 from

Miller's bank loan.

Goldman argues that there was no proof that his role as Miller's lawyer

significantly contributed to his offense. He also complains that the district court made

no specific findings to support the enhancement. On an appeal of a guideline

sentencing enhancement we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and

its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Anderson, 349 F.3d 568, 573 (8th

Cir. 2004).

The sentencing guidelines provide for a two level enhancement if a defendant

has abused a position of public trust and the abuse significantly contributed to the

commission or concealment of the charged offense. USSG § 3B1.3. A defendant

acting in his capacity as an attorney occupies a position of public trust. United States

v. Fitzhugh, 78 F.3d 1326, 1331 (8th Cir. 1996). Use of knowledge gained as an

attorney to commit a crime subjects a defendant to an enhancement for abuse of a

position of public trust under USSG § 3B1.3. See Anderson, 349 F.3d at 573-74. The

Appellate Case: 05-4077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046786
-3-

commentary to the guidelines explicitly mentions attorney embezzlement of client

funds and fraudulent loan schemes as examples which qualify for the enhancement.

USSG § 3B1.3, cmt.1. 

At sentencing Goldman reaffirmed that the proof offered by the government at

the plea hearing was an accurate statement of the facts and he made no objection to

including the plea agreement in the record. The uncontroverted facts demonstrate that

Goldman committed his crime while acting as Miller's attorney. We conclude that the

district court did not err in finding that Goldman had abused his position of public

trust by mishandling his clients' trust funds, falsifying documents, and lying to the

bankruptcy court. 

Goldman also complains that the court failed to provide specific reasons for

applying the enhancement. The district court need not detail its reasons for applying

an enhancement when it is based on unobjected to facts in the presentence

investigation report and other record evidence. United States v. Morrell, 429 F.3d

1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). Here the evidence and undisputed facts supported the

court's finding that Goldman abused a position of public trust. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4077 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2006 Entry ID: 2046786