## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 12 40

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s
* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
* Yvo nn e A. Dock ery, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 11 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 21 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

A jury fo un d Yvo nn e A. Doc ke ry g u i l t y o f t hr ee co un ts of m ai l frau d. The Dis tri ct Co ur t se nt en ced Doc ke ry to th irt y m on th s in pr is on an d ord ered he r to pa y

1 $1 28 ,41 4.2 1 in res ti tu ti on

. O n ap pe al
, sh e ch al le ng es he r co nv ic ti on s an d he r

se nt en ce. We affir m

.

D oc ke ry fir st arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was in su ffi ci e n t t o
pr ov e th at sh e ha d th e ne ces sa ry in t e n t t o c o mm i t frau d. In te nt , an el em en t of th e

The Hon or ab le Harry F. Barn es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.of

fen se , ne ed no t be pr ov ed by dir ec t ev id en ce— th e de fen da nt ’s ad m is si on —b ut m ay be “ in ferr ed fro m th e de fen da nt ’s act io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Onwu m ere, 53 0 F.3 d
65 1, 65 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e rev ie w de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d dr awin g reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or

. Id

.

The ch arg es ag ai ns t Doc ke ry res u l t e d fro m act iv it ie s sh e un de rto ok whi le

se rv in g as m ay or of Garl an d, Ark an sa s. Am on g ot he r th in gs , Doc ke ry is su ed ch eck s dr awn on an acco un t fo r th e Garl an d vo lu nt eer fir e de pa rtment to ci ty em pl oyees an d in st ru ct ed th os e em

pl oyees to cas h t he ch eck s and gi ve he r th e m on ey

. Sh e crea te d fal se in vo ic es do cu m en ti ng fic ti ti ou s pu rch as es in or de r to acco un t fo r th e cas h an d mai l e d th e in vo ic es to th e Ark an sa s Div is io n of Leg is la ti ve Aud it
, whi ch wa s in ve st ig at in g th e m is si ng fu nd s. Doc ke ry al so was in vo lv ed in co nt ract in g wit h Fi rs t Gov ern m en t Leas in g Co m pa ny in Ch ic ag o to pr ov id e fin an ci ng fo r th e le as e or
pu rch as e of th r e e p a t r ol cars , a fir e tru ck
, an d fir efi gh ti ng eq ui pm en t fro m lo cal

ve nd o r s

. S h e rep res en te d to Fi rs t Gov ern m en t Leas in g th at sh e ha d ci ty co un ci l

ap pr ov al fo r th e lo an s whe n sh e kn ew sh e di d no t, thu s ob li ga ti ng Garl an d on th os e lo an co nt ract s. Fi rs t Gov ern m en t Leas in g se nt ch eck s t o t he ve nd or s t o p ay for th e

ve hi cl es an d e qu ip m en t. Doc ke ry th en can cel le d th e le as e-p ur ch as e co nt ract s wit h th e lo cal su pp li ers an d pe rs on al ly co ll ect ed an d ret ai ne d th e refu nd s, an d th e fir efi gh ti ng eq ui pm en t sh e sa y s s h e p u r c ha se d co ul d no t be acco un te d fo r. W e

co nc lu de
, aft er care fu l rev ie w, th at Doc ke ry ’s act io ns pr ov id e am pl e ev id en ce of he r in te nt to co m

m it frau d.

Doc ke ry al so co nt en ds th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t m is cal cu la te d th e am ou nt of lo ss

un de r th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, th us res ul ti ng in a se nt en ce th at is

“ su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
, an ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d n o t su pp or te d by th e

ev id en ce.” Br. of App e l l a n t a t 15

. By th is st at em en t, it ap pe ars th at Doc ke ry is al le gi ng bo th pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng erro r on th e pa rt of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t an d th at he r

se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab l e

. H e r arg um en t, ho wev er, is di rect ed to th e

-2

-co ur t’s cal cu la ti on o f he r of fen se le ve l, whi ch is an al le ga ti on of pr oc ed ur al erro r. See Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 ) (n ot in g t ha t im pr op er cal cu la ti on of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge is a pr o c e d u ral se nt en ci ng erro r). W he n cal cu la ti ng lo ss

res ul ti ng fro m frau d un de r § 2B 1.1 of th e Gui de li ne s, a di st ric t co ur t ne ed on ly m ak e

a reas on ab le es ti m a t e o f t h e a m ou nt of lo ss , as sh own by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Pari sh
, 56 5 F.3 d 52 8, 53 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Fo r se nt en ci ng
pu rp os es , th e am ou nt of lo ss wil l be th e gr eat er of th e act ua l or in te nd ed lo ss

. Id

. W e

r ev ie w th e co ur t’s es ti m at e of lo ss fo r cl ear erro r, gi vi ng th e co ur t ap pr op r i a t e de fere nc e b as ed on it s fa m il ia rit y wit h t he ev id en ce i n t he cas e. Id

.

At se nt en ci ng , th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, ov er Doc ke ry ’s ob jecti on , ad op te d th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t’s a mo un t-o f-l os s cal cu la ti on of $1 28 ,41 4.2 1: $4 2,4 00 .00 fo r th e cas h sh e rece iv ed fro m th e vo lu nt eer- fir e-d ep art m en t acco un t an d $8 6,0 14 .21 ($ 40 ,00 0.0 0 fo r th e po li ce cru is ers , $4 6,0 14 .21 fo r th e fir e tru ck an d

eq ui pm en t) for th e lo an s Do ck ery arra ng ed —an d frau du le nt ly ob li ga te d Garla nd to
pa y —fo r th e co st of le as in g or pu rc h a s i n g th e ve hi cl es an d eq ui pm en t. The co ur t

o r d e r e d Doc ke ry to pa y res ti tu ti on to Garl an d in th is am ou nt

. The am ou nt of l o s s al so res ul te d in a te n- le ve l in crea se to Doc ke ry ’s ba se -o ffen se le ve l un de r th e Gui de li ne s.

Doc ke ry do es no t di sp ut e th e lo ss am ou nt s, an d th ere is am pl e te st im on ia l an d do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce of th os e am ou nt s in th e reco rd

. In st ead
, th e su bs ta nc e of he r
arg um en t is th at Garl an d rece iv e d t h r ee po li ce cars an d a fir e tru ck be fo re th e ci ty de fau lt ed on th e Fi rs t Gov ern m en t Leas in g co nt ract s “ an d th e ve hi cl es co ul d be fo un d

an d so ld
, red uc in g th e am ou nt of lo ss .” Br. of App el la nt at 15

. Bu t Doc ke ry te st ifi ed th at th e po li ce cars an d fir e tru ck “ br ok e,” th at th e po li ce ch ie f ha d ta ke n th e cars , an d th at th e cars ha d bee n rep os se ss ed whe n th e ci ty de fau lt ed on th e co nt ract s and was

su ed

. See Tr. at 41 7, 41 9. App aren tl y , th ere are no ve hi cl es to be “ fo un d an d so ld ,”

an d th e reco rd co nt ai ns no ev id en ce to th e co nt rary. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t
rep res en te d t o t he co ur t t ha t “ ev en if t he cars were s ol d a t a l at er d at e, . . . t he re h as

-3

-ne ve r be en an of fs et to th es e co nt ract s.” Id

. at 55 4. The Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in in cl ud in g th e fu ll am ou nt s of the frau du le nt ly ob ta in ed lo an s in it s est im at io n of act ua l l os s.

Eve n if the act ua l l os s h ad be en of fs et , $1 28 ,41 4.2 1 is al so th e am ou nt of th e in te nd ed lo ss

. As th e gr eat er am ou nt , th is in te nd ed lo ss wou ld ap pl y fo r se nt en ci ng
pu rp os es

. Doc k e r y f

r au du le nt ly ob li ga te d Garl an d to pa y th e fu ll am ou nt of th e 2
lo an s b y rep res en ti ng th at sh e ha d cit y co un ci l app ro va l when sh e d id no t. The ful l

a mou nt of th e lo an s is th eref or e th e “ m ax im

um lo ss ” th at a reas on ab le p e r s o n i n Doc ke ry ’s po si ti on at th e ti m e of th e frau d co ul d ha ve in te nd e d

. U n i te d St at es v. S t ap le s, 41 0 F.3 d 48 4, 49 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Thi s is no t a si tu at io n whe re “ th e f a c t s

warra nt ” su bt ract in g t he va lu e o f co ll at eral fro m th e in te nd ed lo ss , as i n t he cas e of

a ho us e, whi ch “ can no t be hi dd en li ke a car or ot he r m ob il e fo rm of se cu rit y .” Id

. at 49 1. Re co ve ry

of t he ve hi cl es an d e qu ip m en t was no t i ne vi ta bl e in th is cas e.

In su m , th e co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in it s cal cu la ti on of th e am ou nt of lo ss , an d we de fer t o i ts fin di ng

.

To th e ex te nt Doc ke ry ch al le ng es th e su bs ta nt iv e r e a s on ab le ne ss of he r

se nt en ce, th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret i o n i n se nt en ci ng he r to th irt y

m on th s in p r i s o n , t h e lo w en d of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. See Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 51 (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

W e aff irm Doc ke ry ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

R e s t i tu ti on wou ld be ba se d on act ua l, no t in te nd ed
, lo ss , Uni te d St at es v. 2 Lan ge , 59 2 F .3d 90 2, 90 7 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ), bu t Dock ery’ s sen te nc in g c ha ll en ge is to

“ [t]he te n (1 0) le ve l in crea se ba se d on th e am ou nt of lo ss fin di ng ha nd ed do wn by th e Co ur t,” n ot to th e res ti tu ti on ord er, Br. o f App el la nt at 1 , 15

.
-4

-