Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-23-02060/USCOURTS-ca6-23-02060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roshell Beaty
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0496n.06

No. 23-2060

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROSHELL BEATY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

OPINION

Before: GILMAN, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. 

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Roshell Beaty pleaded guilty to two counts 

of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of aggravated identify theft. She appeals her 

sentence of 124 months’ imprisonment, arguing that her sentence is both procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the 

district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Beaty applied for and received benefits under three federal-government-funded COVID-19 

pandemic-relief programs for which she was not eligible. The programs in question were the 

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program, the Economic Injury Disaster Program, and the 

Paycheck Protection Program. 

First, between April 2020 and December 2021, Beaty and her five codefendants—three of 

whom are her children, the fourth a child’s girlfriend, and the fifth a friend—submitted false 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 1
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 2 -

unemployment-insurance claims and certifications in Beaty’s and her codefendants’ names. 

These included claims in Arizona, California, Illinois, and Indiana, where Beaty and her 

codefendants did not live or work. Beaty also obtained and used the personal identifying 

information of third-party individuals without their permission to claim unemployment benefits. 

The loss to the federal and state governments from the unemployment-insurance claims totals over

$760,000. 

Second, Beaty conspired with her son to apply for a loan through the Economic Injury 

Disaster Program. Beaty received a loan of $49,900 through false representations that her son 

owned a sole proprietorship, despite her son not owning any businesses during that time. This 

resulted in a total loss to the United States Small Business Administration. 

Finally, Beaty assisted her codefendants in preparing false IRS tax forms for nonexistent 

businesses and submitting fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loans in the codefendants’ 

names. Beaty also prepared and submitted false Paycheck Protection Program loan applications 

with the personal identifying information of third parties and charged a commission to some of 

these third parties for her help in obtaining the loans. The fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program 

loans resulted in a loss to the federal government of over $250,000. 

Beaty pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for her actions 

related to the unemployment benefits and the business loan, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349. She also pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(5). 

In its presentence report, the Probation Office recommended a term of 108 months’

imprisonment, with 84 months to be served on the two conspiracy-to-commit-wire-fraud charges 

and 24 months to be served consecutively on the aggravated-identity-theft charge. This was less 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 2
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 3 -

than the applicable Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months of incarceration. The Probation Office 

made its recommendation for a downward variance based on factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a)(1) and (2), which included Beaty’s medical conditions and a need to avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities. 

Beaty also requested a downward variance from the applicable Guidelines range. In her 

accompanying sentencing memorandum, she argued that the Guidelines range was too high because it

exceeded a just sentence, and that other defendants across the country were receiving lower sentences 

for similar convictions. She specifically cited her background of being a victim of domestic assault, 

being a single mother of six children without child support, her medical issues, and her lack of any 

criminal convictions for drug use. 

Beaty was sentenced in December 2023. The district court began by describing her offense 

conduct, reviewing the presentence report, and identifying the uncontested Guidelines range. Defense 

counsel referenced Beaty’s sentencing memorandum and argued that Beaty had accepted full 

responsibility, cooperated in the investigation, made a positive contribution to her community, dealt 

with significant health issues, and experienced pressures as a young, single mother. Her counsel then 

asked the court to impose a sentence below the Probation Office’s recommended sentence. The 

government argued in response that Beaty had taken advantage of the pandemic to steal money, which 

she used in part to buy a Jaguar F-PACE car, and that she had involved her family members in these

criminal activities. 

After considering these arguments, the district court imposed Beaty’s sentence. The court first 

discussed the § 3553(a) factors, particularly focusing on the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing

disparities. It said:

Finally, the statute says to avoid unwarranted disparities, and I have—I have talked 

about this a number of times, but when we compare defendants and the sentences 

that they receive, there is a lot that doesn’t meet the eye unfortunately. You have 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 3
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 4 -

to really look at the individual Defendant, what his offense level is, what his or her 

criminal history is, and so I think talking about unwarranted disparities at least 

within the context of the crime in front of me is more or less unhelpful. 

But I will say that of the two Defendants who have been sentenced thus far, Mr. 

Bates—Christopher Bates was sentenced to a term of 18 months custody. Brianna 

Rimpson was sentenced to one day in custody, which I think speaks to the --her 

involvement in this offense and I think the relative culpability that she bears in this 

case.

The district court then acknowledged that the Guidelines range was high, reasoning that a

downward variance was warranted and should reflect a reduction of three offense levels. This 

resulted in an advisory range of 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment. Beaty was ultimately sentenced 

to 100 months on each of the conspiracy-to-commit-wire-fraud charges, to be served concurrently,

and to 24 months on the aggravated-identity-theft charge, to be served consecutively. 

Both parties were then asked: “[I]s there any legal objection to the sentence that I have 

announced that has not already been argued on the record?” Both Beaty’s counsel and the 

government stated they had no objection. This timely appeal followed. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of review

We review a defendant’s sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, generally 

applying the abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A 

district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the 

correct legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” United States v. Pugh, 

405 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2005). But if a defendant has not preserved her challenge to the 

sentence imposed, we review under the plain-error standard. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United 

States, 589 U.S. 169, 170–71 (2020). “To show plain error, a defendant must show (1) error 

(2) that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected defendant's substantial rights[,] and (4) that affected 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 4
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 5 -

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Wallace, 

597 F.3d 794, 802 (6th Cir. 2010).

Beaty contends that her sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. But 

Beaty has not preserved her argument regarding procedural unreasonableness. If a party fails to 

make a contemporaneous objection to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence when the 

district court provides an opportunity to object, the party fails to preserve that objection. United 

States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872–73 (6th Cir. 2004). Because Beaty failed to raise such an 

objection after the district court gave her the opportunity to do so, we review her proceduralreasonableness challenge for plain error. See id. On the other hand, Beaty has preserved her 

substantive-reasonableness challenge by informing the district court of her arguments in support 

of a shorter sentence, so we review that argument under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See 

United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

B. Procedural reasonableness

“A sentence may be held procedurally unreasonable if it is marked by ‘significant 

procedural error, such as . . . failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an 

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 

743, 753 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Beaty claims that the district court failed 

to address her nonfrivolous argument that her Guidelines range was far over that needed to meet 

the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As a general matter, “a district court need not ‘exhaustively 

explain’ why it chose one sentence over another, . . . so long as the district court provides the 

‘specific reason for the imposition of the sentence’ if it is outside the guidelines range.” United 

States v. Brock, 501 F.3d 762, 774 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (first quoting United States v. 

Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006), then quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2)), abrogated on other 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 5
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 6 -

grounds by Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282 (2016). The key question is whether the court 

laid out “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). “Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous 

reasons for imposing a different sentence [than the one recommended by the Guidelines], . . . the 

judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments. Sometimes the 

circumstances will call for a brief explanation; sometimes they will call for a lengthier 

explanation.” Id. at 357.

Under the plain-error standard, Beaty’s procedural-reasonableness argument fails. 

Acknowledging the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the district court stated that 

the sentence should account for Beaty’s individual circumstances. The fact that the court did not

discuss each of the examples that Beaty provided does not mean that the court inappropriately 

considered her argument regarding sentencing disparities. See United States v. Torres, 634 Fed.

App’x. 575, 576 (6th Cir. 2016) (“No doubt, the court could have spoken at greater length (and so 

could we), but its account sufficed to provide an explanation for the sentence and a basis for 

reviewing it.”). The court even considered the sentences of Beaty’s two codefendants who had 

already been sentenced, although it was not required to do so under § 3553(a), and it stated that 

the difference in sentences reflected their level of culpability in the crime. We consequently 

conclude that Beaty’s sentence was procedurally reasonable under the plain-error standard of 

review.

C. Substantive reasonableness 

“A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court . . . gives 

an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United 

States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). The § 3553(a) factors, which the court 

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 6
No. 23-2060, United States v. Beaty

- 7 -

“shall” consider, include “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the history and 

characteristics of the defendant,” and the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense,” “promote respect for the law,” “provide just punishment,” “afford adequate deterrence 

to criminal conduct,” and “protect the public.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

“In reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we must ‘take into account the totality of the 

circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. 

Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). We must also “give ‘due 

deference’ to the district court’s conclusion that the sentence imposed is warranted by 

the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “The fact that [we] might reasonably 

have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal.” Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51.

Beaty’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Although her sentence is lengthy, the district 

court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and Beaty’s arguments about sentencing disparities. 

The court even sentenced Beaty below the lower end of the applicable Guidelines range. Given 

that the sentence was not arbitrary and was imposed in light of a reasoned application of 

the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Case: 23-2060 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 7