Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01293/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Jo Elliott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,, .. 

l1 ILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uaited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 16 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

MARY JO ELLIOTT, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-1293 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-172) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before McKAY, SETH, circuit Judges, and Parker,** District Judge. 

**Honorable James A. Parker, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Defendant Mary Jo Elliott entered a plea of guilty to one 

count of making false statements to a federally insured bank, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. In sentencing Elliott, the district 

court assessed a two level upward adjustment for more than minimal 

planning and a two level upward adjustment for abuse of a position 

of trust. Elliott appeals the sentence arguing that the district 

court erred in assessing the two level upward adjustments for more 

than minimal planning and for an abuse of a position of trust, and 

challenges the sufficiency of the district court's findings in 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 1 
,. 

support of the two level upward adjustment for abuse of a position 

of trust. We affirm. 

I. Background 

According to the uncontested facts in the presentence report 

which was prepared for the district court, Elliott was employed by 

the Affiliated Denver National Bank in Denver, Colorado as the 

Administrator of the Facilities. The presentence report states 

that her job responsibilities included managing the 

telecommunications system, maintaining the security of the 

equipment within the bank, and purchasing equipment and office 

supplies for the bank. (Rec. Vol. III at 2). 

On April 18, 1988, Elliott rented a post office box in the 

names of "Complete Office Services" and "ABC Office Supplies and 

Printing." (Rec. Vol. III at 2) . Later, on November 16, 1988, 

Elliott closed the post office box and opened a new post office box 

in the names "Mary Jo Elliott" and "ABC Office Supplies and 

Printing." On six separate occasions, Elliott prepared and 

submitted to the bank false invoices totalling $4,881.65 from these 

the two fictitious companies for goods and services that were never 

provided to the bank. (Rec. Supp. Vol. II at 13). 

II. More Than Minimal Planning 

Defendant contends that the district court incorrectly applied 

the Sentencing Guidelines in assessing a two level increase for 

more than minimal planning. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 2 
We must "give due deference to the district court's 

application of the guidelines to the facts." 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 

This due deference standard requires that where a mixed question 

of law and fact is essentially factual, judicial administration 

concerns will favor the district court, and so we will review the 

district court's determination under the clearly erroneous 

standard. United States v. Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1468-69 (10th 

Cir. 1990). However, the court's legal conclusions are subject to 

de novo review. Id.; United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1163 

(10th Cir. 1990). The question here is whether the district court 

correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in assessing a two 

level increase for more than minimal planning and abuse of a 

position of trust based on the undisputed facts. We therefore 

review the district court's determination under the clearly 

erroneous standard. 

The Sentencing Guidelines provide a two level increase "[i]f 

the offense involved more than minimal planning". U.S.S.G. 

§ 2Fl.l(b) (2) (A). The Commentary to the Guidelines explains that 

"' [m] ore than minimal planning' means more planning than is typical 

for the commission of the offense in a simple form." 

lBl.l, comment (n.l(f)). The Commentary adds that: 

U.S.S.G. 

More than minimal planning is present in any case 

involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it 

is clear that each instance was purely opportune. 

Consequently, this adjustment will apply especially 

frequently in property cases. 

* * * 

In an embezzlement, a single taking accomplished by a 

false book entry would constitute only minimal planning. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 3 
on the other hand, creating purchase orders to, and 

invoices from, a dummy corporation for merchandise that 

was never delivered would constitute more than minimal 

planning, as would several instances of taking money, 

each accompanied by false entries. 

Id. (Emphasis added). 

The Sentencing Guidelines clearly envisioned that the two 

level increase for more than minimal planning would be applied to 

the facts of this case. The defendant rented post office boxes, 

on two separate occasions, first in the names of two nonexistent 

companies "Complete Office Services" and "ABC Office Supplies and 

Printing" and later in her own name and the name of a "ABC Office 

Supplies and Printing. 11 Elliott subsequently submitted false 

invoices1 to the bank for payment in the names of Complete Office 

Equipment and ABC Office Supply and Printing on six separate 

occasions for merchandise and services that were never provided. 

(Rec. Supp. Vol. III at 2). 

Elliott contends, however, that the offense did not entail 

"more planning than is typical for the commission of the offense 

in a simple form" because the crime was "sloppily executed. 11 2 

1

Defendant also argues that because she only created invoices 

and not purchase orders that "implies that a creation of a great 

deal more paper than a simple invoice would be required to meet the 

definition of 'more than minimal planning.'" Appellant's Opening 

Brief at 6. Al though the Commentary makes reference to both 

invoices and purchase orders, there is no indication in the 

Commentary that both items are required to be present before the 

adjustment can be applied. 

2

Elliot's argument that disparate sentences between defendants 

in unrelated cases frustrates Congress' objective of creating 

uniformity and proportionality in sentencing under the Guidelines 

lacks merit. See United States v. Trujillo, No. 89-2190, slip op. 

at 11-19 (10th Cir. June 28, 1990). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 4 
(Appellant's Opening Brief at 6; Rec. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 2 at 2). 

While it appears that Elliott's conduct was unsophisticated, it is 

also apparent that her commission of the offense involved more than 

minimal planning. As the court stated in United States v. Fox, 889 

F.2d 357, 361 (1st Cir. 1989), obtaining even one fraudulent loan 

would involve more than minimal planning because defendant would 

have to provide a "chain of false information." 

III. Abuse of a Position of Trust 

Defendant also maintains that the district court erred by 

finding that she abused a "position of trust" within the meaning 

of Section 3Bl. 3 of the Guidelines. Specifically, Elliott contends 

that her position merely afforded her an opportunity that was 

available to others in the bank. 

Section 3Bl.3 of the Guidelines states that "[i]f the 

defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a 

special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the 

commission or concealment of the offense, increase by two levels." 

U.S.S.G. § 3El.1. The Commentary to this section explains that 

"[t]he position of trust must have contributed in some substantial 

way to facilitating the crime and not merely have provided an 

opportunity that could as easily been afforded to other persons. 

This adjustment, for example, would not apply to an embezzlement 

by an ordinary bank teller." U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.3, comment (n.1). 

Based on our reading of the Guidelines and the record, we 

conclude that the trial court did not err in assessing a two level 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 5 
upward adjustment for abuse of a position of trust. Elliott was 

a management-level administrator at the bank during the time period 

in which she submitted the fraudulent invoices. As the 

Administrator of the Facilities charged with the responsibility of 

budgeting and purchasing office supplies and equipment for the 

bank, Elliott was in a position to learn the internal procedures 

for payment of goods and services provided to the bank and to 

evaluate invoices submitted by suppliers and thereby learn how 

those invoices should be presented. Although other bank employees 

with similar positions in the bank may have also had the 

opportunity available to Elliott, this does not diminish the fact 

that Elliott's position significantly facilitated the commission 

of the offense. 

IV. Rule 32 Findings 

Finally, Elliott contends that the district court erred in not 

making sufficient findings to support its determination that 

Elliott abused a position of trust as required by 18 u.s.c. § 

3553(c) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. 

We recently rejected a similar argument in United States v. 

Beaulieu, 900 F.2d 1531 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 58 U.S.L.W. 3817 

(1990). In Beaulieu, we distinguished a departure from an 

adjustment under the Guidelines. We held, in accord with several 

other circuits, that unlike cases of departure from the Guidelines 

which require that the sentence be vacated if the trial court fails 

to specify its reasons for departure, an upward adjustment to a 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 6 
point within the Guidelines does not require a specific "finding" 

by the district judge. Id. at 1535-36. 

Section 3553 (c) directs the trial court, at the time of 

sentencing, to "state in open court the reasons for its imposition 

of the particular sentence." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). At the 

sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that "[w]e so find that 

the Defendant abused a position of trust, and will therefore apply 

a two level increase to her score." (Rec. Vol. II at 12). In our 

view, this general requirement of "reasons" was satisfied by the 

trial court. See Beaulieu, 900 F.2d at 1535-36 (citing United 

States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied 868 

F.2d 807, cert. denied, 109 s.ct. 3257 (1989) (sentencing judge's 

statement that the defendant was a "manager" or "leader" was 

sufficient finding of fact to justify upward adjustment)). 

Since the trial court made findings sufficient to support the 

conclusion that Elliot abused a position of trust and properly 

assessed level increases for both more than minimal planning and 

abuse of a position of trust, the sentence imposed by the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. 

7 

ENTERED FOR TI-IE COURT 

JAMES A. PARKER 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1293 Document: 010110040916 Date Filed: 08/16/1990 Page: 7