Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03972/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03972-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Sharon Marie Wheeler
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3972

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Sharon Marie Wheeler, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2004

Filed: June 21, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Sharon Wheeler pleaded guilty to two counts of bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 1344. At her sentencing hearing, Ms. Wheeler and the government agreed that,

under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the applicable sentencing range was

30 to 37 months. The district court1 sua sponte departed upward from that range and

imposed a sentence of 48 months. Ms. Wheeler appeals the upward departure.

Appellate Case: 03-3972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918106
-2-

Ms. Wheeler first argues that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2)

by not identifying the facts upon which it relied in departing upward. In the district

court's written statement of reasons, however, it explained that the upward departure

was "based upon the damage caused by the instant offense to the financial security

of [a named corporation]." Although the district court did not set out in its statement

of reasons the facts from which it concluded that Ms. Wheeler's conduct imperiled the

finances of the corporation, § 3553(c)(2) does not require such detail. All it requires

is a statement of reasons sufficient to ensure adequate review of the departure, which

is satisfied here. Cf. United States v. Orchard, 332 F.3d 1133, 1141 n.7 (8th Cir.

2003).

Ms. Wheeler next asserts that the record contained insufficient evidence to

justify the upward departure. According to an application note of the sentencing

guideline that applies to her offense, "an upward departure may be warranted" when

"[t]he offense endangered the solvency or financial security of one or more victims."

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.15(A)(v)) (2002). The presentence investigation

report (PSR) states that "[t]he money embezzled by [Ms.] Wheeler was a substantial

loss to [the corporation] ... [and] adversely affected the company's viability,

profitability, and ability to staff the business." In fact, according to the same report,

during one year Ms. Wheeler "embezzled over one-third of the total funds" of the

corporation, following which the corporation "verged on bankruptcy," and its owners

"were forced to begin funneling personal finances into the company to keep it afloat."

Ms. Wheeler did not object to any of these statements in the PSR. The district court

therefore did not err in concluding that Ms. Wheeler's embezzlement endangered the

corporation's financial security and warranted an upward departure.

Ms. Wheeler also maintains that, rather than basing the upward departure on

the consequences of her embezzlement, the district court relied on her criminal

history, which already was taken into account by the guidelines calculation and thus

was not a permissible ground for an upward departure, see Williams v. United States,

Appellate Case: 03-3972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918106
-3-

503 U.S. 193, 200 (1992). At the sentencing hearing, the district court did mention

Ms. Wheeler's past convictions for misconduct similar to the offense in this case, but

it did so only while explaining why it believed that a mental disease or condition from

which Ms. Wheeler claimed to suffer did not cause her to perpetrate her crime. Ms.

Wheeler's argument is therefore meritless.

Finally, Ms. Wheeler contends that the district court violated her sixth

amendment rights by departing upward. Because Ms. Wheeler challenges the

constitutionality of the upward departure for the first time on appeal, we review for

plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 548-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc). The district court sentenced Ms. Wheeler before the Supreme Court's decision

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and erred by not sentencing Ms.

Wheeler under the advisory-guidelines scheme set out in that case. Nevertheless, Ms.

Wheeler has not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that [she] would have

received a more favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated." Pirani, 406

F.3d at 551. Indeed, the district court departed upward sua sponte. Ms. Wheeler is

therefore not entitled to relief. See id. at 550-54.

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3972 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918106