Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03720/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03720-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Arteria Louise Watson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3720

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Arteria Louise Watson, * 

* [PUBLISHED]

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2004

Filed: December 7, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arteria Louise Watson pled guilty to one count of making false statements in

bank records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005. On appeal, she challenges the district

court’s1

 refusal to grant her a three-level reduction in her offense level in recognition

of her acceptance of responsibility. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841598 
-2-

Watson worked as a vault teller for Signal Bank in Minnesota. In December

of 2000, she began to steal money from the vault, and created false transaction reports

to account for the missing money. Watson’s misconduct was uncovered by an

internal audit of the bank, and she was suspended on January 16, 2002. By that time,

Watson had stolen about $570,000 from the bank.

Watson was indicted on ten criminal counts related to her theft. She reached

an agreement with the government, whereby she pled guilty to one count of making

false statements in bank records in exchange for dismissal of the remaining nine

counts. Watson’s plea agreement required her to “cooperate[] fully during the

preparation of the presentence report, including an asset investigation.” (Plea

Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations at 5.) At the change of plea hearing, the

district court reminded Watson that she must “cooperate fully as we go forward doing

a presentence report and an asset investigation.” (Change of Plea Hr’g at 11.) Both

the plea agreement and the change of plea hearing reflect Watson’s understanding

that if she assisted in the investigation, the government would recommend a reduction

in her offense level due to her acceptance of responsibility.

Prior to sentencing, Watson had meetings with both a presentence investigator

and a government attorney. Watson was not able to detail the stream of ill-gotten

gains to the satisfaction of either the government attorney or the presentence

investigator. Watson accounted for roughly $200,000 of the money, but could not

identify what happened to the remaining $370,000. Because the presentence

investigator did not believe Watson had truthfully admitted the conduct comprising

her offense, she did not recommend an acceptance of responsibility reduction for

Watson. The district court accepted the presentence report’s denial of the reduction,

and sentenced Watson to 46 months of imprisonment.

A defendant may receive an offense-level reduction if he or she “clearly

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility” for the offense. USSG § 3E1.1(a); United

Appellate Case: 03-3720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841598 
-3-

States v. Ngo, 132 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir. 1997). While entry of a guilty plea is

strong evidence of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, “[a] defendant who

enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under this section as a matter of

right.” USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3); United States v. Mohamed, 161 F.3d 1132,

1136 (8th Cir. 1998). Rather, the district court must take into consideration such

circumstances as whether the defendant has truthfully admitted the conduct

comprising the offense and voluntarily assisted in the recovery of the fruits of the

offense in determining whether the totality of the defendant’s conduct establishes

acceptance of responsibility. See generally USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1). We

review the decision to grant or deny an acceptance of responsibility reduction for

clear error. Ngo, 132 F.3d at 1233; see also United States v. Nguyen, 339 F.3d 688,

690 (8th Cir. 2003) (“A district court’s factual determination on whether a defendant

has demonstrated acceptance of responsibility is entitled to great deference and

should be reversed only if it is so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation.”);

United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1002 (8th Cir. 1990) (“The question of

whether a defendant has accepted responsibility is a factual one, depending largely

on credibility assessments by the sentencing judge, who can far better evaluate the

defendant’s acceptance of responsibility than can a reviewing court.”).

We find no error in the district court’s denial of an acceptance of responsibility

adjustment in this case. Throughout the criminal proceedings, Watson was aware that

she would be required to assist authorities with the recovery of her ill-gotten gains.

Indeed, she acknowledged as much when she signed her plea agreement. When, at

the change of plea hearing, the district court directly asked Watson what happened

to the stolen money, Watson’s lawyer interjected, stating “we’re going to sit down

with probation and the United States Attorney’s Office and tell them exactly where

all of that [went].” (Change of Plea Hr’g at 26.) When Watson met with probation

and the government, however, she could only account for roughly $200,000, leaving

the whereabouts of the other $370,000 a mystery. We cannot fault the district court

for disbelieving Watson’s story that she spent well over a half-million dollars in just

Appellate Case: 03-3720 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841598 
-4-

over a year’s time, but could not recall what she spent most of the money on.

Watson’s conduct was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. Accord United

States v. Mohamed, 161 F.3d at 1136-37 (affirming denial of an acceptance of

responsibility adjustment where the defendant failed to assist the government in

recovering the fraud victim’s insurance proceeds). We thus affirm the district court’s

refusal to grant Watson an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 03-3720 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/07/2004 Entry ID: 1841598