UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 4 001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,

Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,

v.

SONYA SKINNER
,

Defendant

– Appell ant

.

No. 22

- 4 013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,

Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,

v.

SONYA SKINNER
,

Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:16

- cr

- 00017

- RCY

- LRL

- 1 ; 2:21

- cr

- 00062

- RCY

RJK

- 1)

Submitted : Febru ary 1 7 , 202 3 Decided: April 4, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 102 Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges

, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Rodolfo Cejas, II, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Vir ginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia

, Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 103 PER CURIAM : Sonya Skinner appeals from her convictions for four counts of bankruptcy fraud

following a bench trial and her resulting 12

- month within

- Guidelines sentence. She also

appeals the 18

- month upward variance sentence imposed for violation of her su pervised

release. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of her specific intent and

the district court’s explanation for her aggregate sentence. We vacate Skinner’s revocation

sentence and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the re mainder of the district court’s

judgments.

Skinner first argues that the Government presented insufficient evidence of her

specific intent. While Skinner moved for a judgment of acquittal after the close of the

Government’s case raising this issue, she did not renew her motion after trial. Accordingly,

this argument is forfeited absent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v.

Duroseau, 26 F.4th 674, 678 n.2 (4th Cir. 2022); United States v. Fall, 955 F.3d 363, 374

(4th Cir. 2020). “[T]he ‘manifest miscarriage’ language [is] simply a formulation of the

plain

- error test’s application to insufficiency claims.” United States v. Delgado

, 672 F.3d

320, 331 n.9 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc ); see also United States v. Norris
, 21 F.4th 188, 199

(1st Cir. 2021) (when insufficient evidence clai m was not raised in Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 motion,

claim is reviewed for plain error); United State s v. Chaparro

, 956 F.3d 462, 468 (7th Cir.

2020)(explaining tha t, because defendant did not renew Rule 29 motion, he “forfeited his

sufficiency challenge,” and court “reviews for a manifest miscarriage of justice” or “plain

error” (internal quotation marks omitted)). USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 3 of 104 For a defendant to prevail under the plain

- error standard, we must find that: “(1) an

error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or pub lic reputation of judicial proceedings.” United

States v. Comer
, 5 F.4th 535, 548 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) . “[A]n

appellate court conducting plain

- error review may consider the entire record

— not just the

record from the particular proceeding where the error occurred.” Greer v. United States

,
141 S. Ct. 2090, 2098 (2021) (emphasis in the original).

Bankruptcy fraud involves filing a bankruptcy petition with an intent to execute,

conceal, or attempt to execute or conceal “a scheme or artifice to defraud.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 157

. To obtain a conviction on this offense, the Government must prove that Skinner acted

with the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Yurek, 925 F.3d 423, 439 (10th Cir.

2019). Specific intent to defraud requires the intent “to deprive one of something of value

through a misrepresentation or other similar dishonest method, which indeed would cause

him harm.” United States v. Wynn

, 684 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012) (mail/wire fraud).

Therefore, “to convict a person of defrauding another, more must be shown than simply an

intent to lie to the victim or to make a false statement to him.” Id. As the Supreme Court

has explained, a scheme to defraud “must be one to deceive the [victim] and deprive [him

or her] of something of value.” Shaw v. United States
, 580 U.S. 63, 72 (2016) (bank fraud)

(emphasis in original). However, specific intent may be “inferred from the totality of the

circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence.” United States v. Godwin

, 272 F.3d

659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001). USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 4 of 105 Skinner avers tha t her false statements on various documents in her bankruptcy

petition were due to misunderstandings and that the lack of motive evidence boosted the

credibility of her testimony. This argument heavily relies upon Skinner’s testimony that she

did not under stand the scope of the questions in the bankruptcy petition and made reasonable

mistakes therein. However, the district court did not find Skinner to be a credible witness

and, in fact, imposed an obstruction of justice enhancement based on her perjured te stimony.

Credibility determinations made by the district court are rarely reviewable on appeal. United

States v. Cates
, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2010) (“Witness credibility is quintessentially a

judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal.”); United States v. Oquendo

- Rivera
, 586

F.3d 63, 67 (1st Cir. 2009) (“[T]he reviewing court must interpret the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government,

. . . and credibility is largely a matter for the fact

- finder.”).

We afford the district court’s credibility finding great deference and, thus, determine that

Skinner has failed to show error, much less plain error.

Moreover, Skinner does not d ispute that plain error is the appropriate standard of

review, and yet she fails to address the plain error standard. Our review of the record does

not reveal any plain error with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence. Accordingly, we

affirm Skinner’s convictions.

Turning to Skinner’s sentence, for a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, “a

district court must conduct an individualized assessment of the facts and arguments

presented.” United States v. Nance

, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

marks omitted). A “district court’s sentencing explanation need not be exhaustive or USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 5 of 106 robotically tick through [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors. But the court’s explanation must be

sufficient to satisfy the appellate court that the district court has considered the parties’

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.”

United States v. Friend

, 2 F.4th 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2021 ) (cleaned up), cert. denied

, 142 S.

Ct. 724 (2021). “The explanation is sufficient if it, although somewhat briefly, outlines the

defendant’s particular history and characteristics not merely in passing or after the fact, but

as part of its analysis of the statutory factors and in response to defense counsel’s arguments

. . . .” United States v. Lozano
, 962 F.3d 773, 782 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks

omitte d).

While “it is sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the

context surrounding its decision,” we “may not guess at the district court’s rationale,

searching the record for statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other

clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Ross

, 912 F.3d 740, 745 (4th Cir.

2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “in a routine case, where the district

court imposes a within

- Guidelines sentence, the explanation need not be elaborate or

lengthy.” United States v. Arbaugh

, 951 F.3d 167, 174

- 75 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

marks omitte d). Ultimately, “[t]he adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends

on the complexity of each case and the facts and arguments presented.” United States v.

Torres

- Reyes
, 952 F.3d 147, 151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We find that the district court’s explanation for Skinner’s bankruptcy fraud

within

- Guidelines sentence sufficiently demonstrated that it considered the parties’ USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 6 of 107 arguments and the relevant statutory factors. The court explicitly stated that it considered

the parties’ positions on sentencing and the a rguments of counsel and noted that counsel

contended that Skinner was not a danger to the community. The court expressed concern

about the serious nature of Skinner’s bankruptcy fraud, especially in light of prior court

orders limiting Skinner’s ability to file bankruptcy petitions. The court noted Skinner’s

normal childhood and considered that she had a master’s degree and no history of drug

abuse or mental health issues. The court further determined that Skinner’s conduct was

repetitive, even af ter prior punishments, and showed a “blatant disregard” for the court

system. The court explicitly listed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors that it considered and found

both an upward and a downward variance inappropriate. We hold that the court’s

explanation of Skinner’s within

- Guidelines sentence was sufficient and that Skinner’s 12

-
month sentence was procedurally reasonable.

Skinner also argues that her sentence imposed upon the revocation of her supervised

release was procedurally unreasonable due to the lack of a sufficient explanation by the

district court. Skinner’s revocation Guidelines range was 4 to 10 months, and she was

sentenced to an upward variance sentence of 18 months. “A district court has broad

discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” United States

v. Webb

, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is

within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Slappy

,
872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining

whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether the

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. Only if we find the sentenc e USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 7 of 108 procedurally and or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is “plainly” so.

United States v. Moulden , 478 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating that a plainly

unreasonable sentence is one in which the error is clear and obvious). In doing so, this court is

guided by “the same procedural and substantive considerations that guide [its] review of

original sentences,” but it takes “a mo re deferential appellate posture than [it] do[es] when

reviewing original sentences.” United States v. Padgett , 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2015)

(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)

. “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the di strict court adequately

explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding

Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United

States v. Coston , 964 F.3d 289, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (intern al quotation marks omitted); see

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing sentencing factors applicable to revocation proceedings). “[A]

revocation sentence is substantively reasonable if, in light of the totality of the

circumstances, the court states an appropriate basis for concluding that the defendant

should receive the sentence imposed.” Coston , 964 F.3d at 297 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

“A court need not be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence as

it must be when imposing a post

- conviction sentence, but it still must provide a statement

of reasons for the sentence imposed.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 54 7 (4th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An explanation is adequate if it permits this

Court to determine “that the sentencing court considered the applicable sentencing factors

with regard to the particular defendant before it and also consid ered any potentially USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 8 of 109 meritorious arguments raised by the parties with regard to sentencing.” United States v.

Gibbs , 897 F.3d 199, 204 (4th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Skinner adopted the arguments made at her sente ncing for her fraud

convictions, which was held the same day. There, she argued that she was not a risk to

society and that, despite her lapses in judgment, she corrected her errors when they were

pointed out. These were certainly not extensive arguments, and the district court stated that

it considered the arguments of counsel and the relevant statutory factors.

However, the only individualized statement made by the district court in its

explanation for the revocation sentence was factually incorrect. The court stated that

Skinner filed “four fraudulent bankruptcy petitions while on a term of supervised release

for filing fraudulent bankruptcy petitions.” J.A. 95. However, Skinner was not on

supervised release for filing fraudulent bankruptcy petitions; ins tead, she was on

supervised release for convictions arising from her charging customers for bankruptcy

petition preparation and legal advice, despite being enjoined by the court from doing so.

Moreover, Skinner did not file four fraudulent bankruptcy petit ions while on the instant

supervised release; she only filed one, even though four charges arose from that filing.

Also , the district court did not address the upward variance or why the Guidelines

range was insufficient. Given the court’s failure to explain its sentence and its reliance on

incorrect facts, we find that Skinner’s revocation sentence was procedurally unreasonable.

Accordingly, we vacate Skinner’s revoca tion sentence and remand for resentencing. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 9 of 1010 We affirm Skinner’s bankruptcy fraud convictions and resulting sentence

. * We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART

, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

* We decline to address the additional claims raised in Skinner’s pro se supplemental briefs. While counsel o riginally filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel has now filed a merits brief. See United States v. Penniegraft , 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion to file pro se supplemental brief because defendant was represented by counsel). USCA4 Appeal: 22-4013 Doc: 55 Filed: 04/04/2023 Pg: 10 of 10