# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 11 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Don al d Ear l Do ds on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 18 , 20 15
Fil ed : M arch 29 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a jury tri al

, Don al d Dod s o n w a s co nv ic te d of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

em be zzl em en t fro m an ag en cy re c e i v i n g f ed eral fu nd s, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 66 6 and 2. At sen te nc in g, Dod so n ob jecte d to rece iv in g a cri m in al hi st or y po in tfo r a pr ev io us un co un se le d co nv ic ti on

. The di st ri c t c o u r t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , 1

bu t va rie d do wnwar d f

r o m t he 18 to 24 m on th ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge an d

se nt en ced Dod so n to 6 m on th s’ im pr i s o nm en t an d 2 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.
Dod so n ap pe al s, ren ewin g hi s o b je c ti on to hi s cri m in al hi st or y cal cu la ti on an d

ch al le ng in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28
U.S.C. § 1 29 1, an d fi nd in g n o e rro r, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

I n A u g u s t 20 12 th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of Hou si ng an d Urb an

Dev el op m en t Offi ce o f In sp ect or Gene ral be ga n an in ve st ig at io n in to th e St ar Ci ty,

Ark an sa s Hou si ng Aut ho rit y (SCHA) aft er be in g in fo rm ed of al le g a ti on s of

m is ap pr op ria ti on of fu nd s by Li b b y D od so n, Don al d Dod so n’s ex -wif e. At th e
be gi nn in g of th e in ve st ig at io n, Libb y Dod so n was the Exe cu ti ve Dire ct or of SCHA

an d ha d ex cl us iv e si gn at or y au th or it y as th e pe rs on res po ns ib le fo r pa yr ol l

m an ag em en t an d o ve rs ig ht , in cl ud in g p rin ti ng ch eck s an d c reat in g i nv oi ces

.

Lib by Dod so n ad m it te d in an in te rv ie w wi t h i n v e st ig at or s th at sh e ha d be en

pr ep ari ng frau du le nt in vo ic es an d ch eck s m ad e pa y ab le to he r m ot he r, Eli zab et h

Ro be rts

, an d he r br ot he r-i n- la w, Ji m m y Dod so n, bo th of who m w e r e oc cas io na ll y

em pl oyed at SCHA. Lib by Dod so n ad m it te d th at th e ch eck s m ad e ou t to he r m ot he r

were no t in co m

pe ns at io n fo r an y wor k do ne

. Lib by Do ds on de po si te d an d cas he d

th e ch eck s m ad e ou t to Ro be rts he rs el f, us in g th e m on ey fo r pe rs on al us e, su ch as to

co ve r he r m on th ly bi ll s. Lib by Dod so n di d so wit ho ut Ro be rts ’s kn owl ed ge or

pe rm is si on

. W it h reg ard to Ji m m y Dod so n, th e ch eck s were ei th er fo r wor k th at was

no t p erfo rm ed or f

or am ou nt s i n e xc es s o f wha t h is work act ua ll y jus ti fie d.

The Hon or ab le D. Pri ce Mar sh al l, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Don al d Dod so n ne ve r wor ke d fo r SCHA. Lib by Dod so n ad mitt ed th at sh e

ga ve hi m ch eck s no ne th el es s. To effe ct th e sc he m e, Lib by Dod so n crea te d frau du le nt

wor k i nv oi ces for hi m in th e na m e of a co m pa ny cal le d J&D Co ns tru ct io n. Do na ld

Dod so n’s ch eck s so m et im es bo re th e na m e of Don na B a l l in ge r, an ot he r SCHA

em pl oyee, bu t Lib by Dod so n ad m it te d to si gn in g Bal li ng er’s na m e w i t h o u t he r

kn owl ed ge or pe rm is si on

. Ult im at el y , Don al d Dod so n rece iv ed $8 2,2 25.4 2 in ch eck s

fro m th e SCHA, an d k ep t at lea st $2 1,3 07 .00 , gi vi ng th e res t t o Li bb y Dod so n.

Don al d Do ds on do es no t di sp ut e he di d no t do an y wor k fo r SCHA, y et th e

ev id en ce in di cat ed he ha d pr ev io us ly li ed an d sa id th at he di d. Fo r in st an ce, he to ld

a ba nk te ll er who was su sp ic io us of a ch eck he cas he d th at he was pu tt in g in win do ws

at SCHA. W he n in te rv ie wed

, Don a ld Dod so n to ld Dete ct iv e Fi rm in —o ne of th e

in ve st ig at or s fro m th e Dep art m en t of Hou si ng —h e cas he d th e ch eck s, bu t he di d no t

kn ow abo ut th e frau du le nt in vo ic es Lib by Dod so n had crea te d. He als o st at ed th at

, fo r 18 of th e 19 ch eck s he cas he d, he di d wor k fo r SCHA, an d he de sc rib ed fo r

Dete ct iv e Fi rm in th e type of wor k he ha d do ne

. H e a l s o s a id he ke pt so m e of th e

m on ey , bu t g av e m

uc h o f it to Lib by Dods on an d t o h is bro th er, J im m y Dod so n.

II . Dis cus si on

Dod so n arg ue s th ere was no t en ou gh ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng th at

he ha d kn owl ed ge of th e th eft of fed eral fu nd s su ff i c i e nt to m ak e hi m an ai de r or
ab et to r of Lib by Dod so n’s sch em e. As h e d id at tri al

, he as se rts th at Lib by Dod so n

was th e on e who c reat ed th e frau du le nt in vo ic es , fo rg ed th e si gn at ur es , an d

m as te rm in de d th e sc he m e. He po in ts ou t th at no wit ne ss es at tri al te st ifi ed ex pl ic it ly

th at he kn ew Lib by Dod so n ha d co m m it te d th eft

, an d arg ue s t h a t t h e go ve rn m en t

s i mp l y fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at he kn ew th e ch eck s he cas he d

rep res en te d st o l en fu nd s. “ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g [t he ] ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le ” to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, “ res ol vi ng

-3

-co nf

li ct s in t h e g ov ern m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at

su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. B r o o k s , 71 5 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 80 –8 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ) (q uo ti n g U n i te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 69 8 F.3 d 69 9, 70 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). “ [W] e
wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Esp in os a,

58 5 F .3d 41 8, 4 23 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

As th e di st ric t co ur t in st r u c t e d t h e ju ry , in or de r to be fo un d gu il ty of ai di ng
ab et ti ng th e ch arg ed th eft

, Don al d Dod so n ha d to “ ha ve kn own th e th eft co nc ern in g

a pr og ram rece iv in g Fed eral fu nd s was be in g co m m it te d or go in g to be co m m it te d.”

See 8t h Ci r. Mo de l Cri m

. Ju ry In st r. § 5.0 1 (2 01 4)

. The go ve rn m en t m ay ha ve la ck ed

di rect ev id en ce th at Dod so n kn ew of th e th eft

, bu t th e jury he ard su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to reac h th e co nc lu si on , be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at he di d. See Uni te d St at es

v. Arm st ro ng , 16 F.3 d 28 9, 29 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ Bec au se kn owl ed ge in th e m in d of

an ot he r is a su bjec ti ve th in g no t al way s cap ab le of pr oo f by po si ti ve o r di rect

ev id e n c e , ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce m ay be rel ie d up on in de te rm in in g whe th er th e

req ui si te m en t a l co nd it io n ex is te d.” ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d al te rat io ns om it te d)

. Dod so n cas he d ch eck s fo r wor k he kn ew he di d no t do (an d fro m an or ga ni zat io n he

ha d ne ve r wor ke d fo r), li ed to a ba nk te ll er who as ke d hi m wha t he di d fo r th e SCHA,

l ie d to an in ve st ig at or ab ou t do in g th e wor k— go in g in to de ta il ab ou t th e wor k h e

su pp os ed ly di d— an d k e p t a s ig ni fic an t am ou nt of th e m on ey

. W e co nc lu de fro m

th es e fact s a reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t Don al d

Dod so n had kn owl ed ge of an d was inv ol ve d in Lib by Dod so n’s th eft of fu nd s from

th e Hou si ng Aut ho rit y

.

Don al d Dod so n al so al le ge s th at th e di st r i c t co ur t erre d in in cl ud in g th e on e
cri m in al hi st or y po in t he was as se ss ed fo r a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r Dom es ti c Bat te ry in

th e Thi rd Deg ree— a m is de m ean or fo r whi ch he di d no t rece iv e jail ti m e. He arg ue s

th at be cau se he was bo th un co un se le d an d no t ad vi se d of hi s rig ht to co un se l fo r th e

pr io r co nv ic ti on , it sh ou ld no t co un t fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng hi s cri m in al hi st or y

sc or e.

-4

-“ The reco rd s sh ow th at [Do ds on ] was co nv ic te d of th e m is de m ean or of fen se [],

an d ou r cas es m ak e cl ear th at on ce th e go ve rn m en t carr ie s i t s i ni ti al bu rd en of

pr ov in g th e fa c t of co nv ic ti on , it is th e de fen da nt ’s bu rd en to sh ow hi s pr io r

co nv ic ti on s were no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly va li d.” Uni te d St at es v. Ch arl es , 38 9 F.3 d 79 7,

79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Dod so n at te m pt s to sh ow a co n s t i tu ti on al erro r in hi s pr io r

co nv ic ti on by arg ui ng th at he was no t ad vi se d of hi s rig ht to co un se l an d th eref or e di d

no t kn owi ng ly wa i v e th at rig ht du rin g th e pr oc eed in g th at le d to hi s m is de m ean or

co nv ic ti on

. The reco rd

, ho wev er, is si le nt wit h r e g a rd to an y ev id en ce th at wou ld

es ta bl is h hi s fact ua l cl ai m

. The un ob jecte d- to in fo rm at io n in Dod so n’s pr es en te nc e

rep or t in di cat es th at Dod so n’s “ [a]tt or ne y rep res en ta ti on [fo r th e pr io r of fen se was ]

un kn own

. The ci rcu m st an ces fo r th is cas e are no t av ai la bl e.” Dod so n di d no t pr es en t

an y ev id en ce, be y on d th e la ck of r e c o r d s , th at he was no t ad vi se d of hi s rig ht to

co un se l. He of

fere d no tra ns cri p t o r ad di ti on al do cu m en ta ti on as to th os e

pr oc eed i n gs , an d he pr es en te d no ad di ti on al ev id en ce by way of te st im on y or

ot he rwis e to su pp or t hi s fact ua l as se rti on

. See Ch arl es , 38 9 F.3 d at 7 9 9

– 8 00

. 2

Bec au se Dod so n fai le d to m eet hi s b ur de n of pr ov in g th e fact ua l ba si s up on whi ch

hi s le ga l arg um en t rel ie s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d n o t err in cal cu la ti ng hi s cri m in al

hi st or y sco re.

II I. Co ncl us io n

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

Th e go ve rn m en t al so arg ue s th at an y se nt en ci ng cal cu la ti on erro r was 2

ha rm le ss , be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld h a v e i m po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce
reg ard le ss

. See Uni te d St at e s v

. W oo ds

, 67 0 F.3 d 88 3, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [C]om pu ta ti on erro r is ha rm le ss if th e go ve rn m en t can sh ow th at th e pr oc ed ur al

erro r di d no t su bs ta nt ia ll y in flu en ce th e ou tc om e of th e se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in g.” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 55 5 F.3 d 71 6, 72 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ))). Eve n if

Don al d’s pr io r m is de m ean or ha d no t b e e n co un te d, th e di st ric t co ur t’s do wnwar d

va ria nc e was well be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 15 –2 1 m on th s, an d th e co ur t no te d
th at Don al d’s ad vi so ry ran ge ov er-r ep res en te d hi s m in or cri m in al hi st or y

. W e ne ed

no t sp ecu la te on wha t th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve do ne , ho wev er, as Don al d ha s no t

pr ov en sen te nc in g e rro r.

-5

-