Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-01499/USCOURTS-ca6-19-01499-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen Dean Gordon Clayborn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0123n.06

Case No. 19-1499

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALLEN DEAN GORDON CLAYBORN aka 

Allen Meme,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. 

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Allen Clayborn tricked charity groups into thinking he 

represented world-famous singer Mariah Carey. He told them that, for a hefty fee, Mariah Carey

would perform a benefit concert on their behalf. Clayborn went to great lengths to make the 

scheme work. He created fake email accounts, bogus signatures, and false identification. And it

worked—at least at first. Clayborn got tens of thousands of dollars from unwitting charities. But 

when the lies caught up to him, Clayborn pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. 

Now, Clayborn argues that the district court clearly erred when it found that: (1) his 

actions caused the charities substantial financial hardship, and (2) he took a leadership role in the 

scheme. Since neither of Clayborn’s arguments prevail, we affirm.

Financial hardship. The district court enhanced Clayborn’s sentence because it believed 

he caused substantial financial hardship to his victims. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2B1.1(b)(2) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018). It based its decision in part on statements from 

 Case: 19-1499 Document: 22-2 Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 1
Case No. 19-1499, United States v. Clayborn

- 2 -

the victims. For example, one of the charities that Clayborn targeted said it had “zero dollars in 

the bank” after falling for the scheme. What’s more, the botched concert caused serious and longterm reputational harm. The group lost sponsors and continues to try to repair its relationships in

the community. Another charity reported that it lost $100,000—twice the amount it had in funds 

at the time—and now faces possible bankruptcy. 

Clayborn claims the victim impact statements from the charity groups are not credible. He

points to one group’s website, which still lists sponsors that the group said it lost. He also cites 

the fact that the groups donated thousands of dollars in scholarships and grants over the last several 

years. 

There are a couple of problems with those points. First, Clayborn simply assumes that the 

group would remove a sponsor from its website once the sponsor stops contributing. It’s just as 

reasonable to assume that the group would leave historic sponsors on the website or might be 

delayed in updating the website. So that doesn’t tell us much. Second, Clayborn’s financial data 

showing that the group gave out significant scholarships and grants span several years before the 

scheme. Obviously, the fact that the groups gave out significant scholarships before they were 

defrauded does not tell us anything about how they suffered after the fraud. 

In all, neither of Clayborn’s arguments cast enough doubt on the victims’ statements that 

the district court can be said to have clearly erred. True, a reasonable person could draw different 

conclusions from this evidence, as is often the case. But we trust district courts to make just these 

kinds of judgment calls. After all, credibility determinations are the bread and butter of district 

courts and appellate courts are wise to defer to their judgment. See United States v. Sheron, 787 

F. App’x 332, 333 (6th Cir. 2019).

 Case: 19-1499 Document: 22-2 Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 2
Case No. 19-1499, United States v. Clayborn

- 3 -

Leadership. The district court enhanced Clayborn’s sentence because it believed he played 

a leadership role in the fraud. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court found that to be the case 

here, and the record evidence supports that decision. 

Clayborn created the scheme. Then, he set up all the false email addresses it used. And he 

was the face of the operation throughout. Clayborn only later let his roommate join so that they 

could use the roommate’s bank account. These facts, taken together, show that the district court 

had a solid basis for concluding that Clayborn played a leadership role. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 

nn. 2, 4 (listing relevant factors). Thus, the district court did not err.

We affirm.

 Case: 19-1499 Document: 22-2 Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 3