# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 27 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Tan ia Hend ers 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 ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 2 5, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Apri l 4 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and BENTON, Circu itJu dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Tan ia Hen de rs on di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d aft er 1 sh e pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of th eft of Uni te d St at es go ve rn m en t m on ey , i.e., fed eral

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.in co m e ta x refu nd s to whi ch sh e was no t en ti tl ed
, a n d f o u r c ou nt s of id en ti ty t he ft.
Her co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap p l i c at io n, at se nt en ci ng , of U.S.S.G. § 3A1 .1(b )(1 ) (v ul ne rab le -v ic ti m en ha nc em en t). Hen de rs on ha s fil ed a pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie f, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap p l i c a t i on s of U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(C) (n um

be r-o f-v ic ti m s en ha nc em en t), an d U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(I) (am ou nt -o f-l os s en ha nc em en t).

To be gi n, we no te th at Hen de rs on in it ia ll y ob jecte d to th e reco m

m en da ti on s in th e pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) th at th e di st ric t co u r t ap pl y th e vu ln erab le -v ic ti m

en ha nc em en t an d th e nu m be r-o f-v ic ti m s en ha nc em en t, bu t d i d n o t ob ject to th e

reco m m en da ti on th at th e co ur t ap pl y th e a mou nt -o f-l os s en ha nc em en t. At he r

se nt en ci ng he ari ng , bo th th ro ug h he r co un se l an d in he r own st at em en ts to th e co ur t, sh e affi rm at iv el y wit hd rew he r ob jecti on to th e vu ln erab le -v ic ti m en ha nc em en t. The

co ur t th eref

or e di d no t ad dr es s th at is su e, bu t di d care fu ll y co ns id er al l th e is su es th at
were p ro pe rly rais ed , and th or ou gh ly exp la in edit s s en te nc in g d eci si on

.

Turn in g to th e is su es rai se d on ap pe al
, w e f i r s t de cl in e to co ns id er th e ch al le ng e to th e vu ln erab le -v ic ti m en ha nc em ent, be ca use H en de rs on w aive d it be lo w. See Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 3 (1 99 3) (wai ve r i s i nt en ti on al rel in qu is hm en t or ab an do nm en t of kn own rig ht a n d res ul ts in is su e be in g

un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ); Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 28 9 F.3 d 52 4, 52 6- 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (wh ere la wy er who rep res en t e d de fen da nt in di st ric t co ur t wit hd rew de fen da nt ’s ob

jecti on s to pr es en te nc e rep or t, de fen da nt was pr ecl ud ed fro m arg ui ng th os e ob jecti on s on ap pe al ). As to th e nu m be r-o f-v ic ti m s en ha nc em en t, we co nc lu de
, up on care fu l rev ie w of th e PSR an d th e tra ns cri pt of Hen de rs on ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at Hen de rs on ’s of fen se in vo lv ed
at le as t 25 0 vi ct im s. See Uni te d St at es v. Icaz a, 49 2 F.3 d 96 7, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (in

rev ie win g ap pl i c a t i o n of nu m be r-o f-v ic ti m s en ha nc em en t, ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie ws di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of Gui de li ne s de no vo an d it s fin di ng s

-2

-of fact fo r cl ear erro r). As to th e am ou nt -o f-l os s en ha nc em en t, we fin d no pl ai n erro r.

See Uni te d St at es v. Pa z o u r , 60 9 F.3 d 95 0, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ) (wh en de fen da nt do es no t ob

ject to en h a n c e men t , co ur t rev ie ws it s ap pl ic at io n fo r pl ai n

erro r).

Fi na ll y , ha vi ng in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8)
, we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t
to co u n s el in fo rm in g Hen de rs on ab ou t pr oc edur es fo r se ek in g reh eari ng or fil in g a pe ti ti on forcert io rari

.

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

-3

-