FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 25 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 04 67 -TCB-GGB -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us CYNTHIA MATTHEW S, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Cynt hi a Ma tt he ws ap pe al s h er 6 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e, im po se d abo ve th eap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge of 3 3 t o 4 1 m on th s, af te r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to co m m it ti ng ba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 44 . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. The reco rdsh ows th atMat th ews an d o th er i nd iv idua ls ex ecu te d asch em e to de frau d s ev eral ba nk s b y op en in g a cco un ts , dep os it in g s to le n c he ck s i nt o t ho se acco un ts , andth enwithdrawi ng th e fu nd s. Ma tt he ws p art ic ip at edinth is en te rp ris e b y

de po si ti ng nu m ero us st ol ench eck s i nt o v ari ou s b an k a cco un ts op en edby her ac co m

pl ic es . She di d s o o n m

ul ti pl e o ccas io ns ov er a p eri odof se ve ral m on th s, b utwithd rew o nl y a frac ti on of t he st ol enm on ey he rs el f. The to ta l am ou ntof i nt en de d l os s fr om Mat th ews ’s act iv it ie s was cal cu la te d a t ap pr ox im at el y

$4 75 ,00 0, wh il e th e am ou ntof a ctua l l os s s uf fere d b y th e b an ks reac he d n earl y

$3 30 ,00 0. 1 Inco m pi li ng th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), th e p ro ba ti on of fic er d es cri be d M at th ews ’s per so na l h is to ry an d n ot edth atsh e h adpro vi de d se ve ral co nf

li ct in g o r m is le ad in g s ta te m en ts to va rio us off ic ers aft er h er arres t. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e g av e in co ns is te ntst at em en ts reg ard in g h er p la ce o f bi rth , whet he r Only some of Matthew s’s criminal ac tivity constituted the offe nse of c onviction. The 1 rest qualifie d as “r eleva

nt conduct” to be considere d only for se ntencingpurposes. SeeU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. 2he r pa ren ts were d ecea se d, h ow m any si bl in gs sh e h ad , wher e sh e h adli ve d gr owi ng up , whet he r sh e h adtra ve le d o ut si de th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d wh ethe r sh e ha d b een m arri ed . The p ro ba ti on off ic er al so ou tl in edMat th ews ’s cri m in al hi st ory , whi ch sh owe d t ha t s he ha d b een co nv ic te d o n s ev endi ffer en t o ccas io ns fo r va rio us cri m es , in cl ud in g fi na nc ia l tran sa ct io n fr au d, the ft, b ur gl ary, an d po ss es si on of i ll eg al dru gs with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . W it h re ga rdto sev eral of th es e cri m es , Mat th ews ha d u se d fa ls e n am es or v io la te d h er p ro ba ti on . Mor eo ve r, Mat th ews ha d ach arg e p en di ng forid en ti ty fraud , andtwo ch arg es pe nd in g fo r drug off en se s fo r whi ch sh e h adfai le d t o app ear i n c ou rt. Incal cu la ti ng Mat th ews ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er as si gn edhe r a b as e o ffen se lev el of 7 , pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(a )(1 ), an d ad de d 1 4 l ev el s u nd er § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(H) b ecau se th e am ou ntof i nt en de d l os s ex ceed ed$4 00 ,00 0. Du e to Mat th ews ’s pri ordru g c on vi ct io ns , andbe cau se sh e co m m it te d t he curren t o ffen se whi le on pro ba ti on , sh e was pl acedin to a cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I II. Ult im at el y , th e d is tri ctco urt g av e h er a 3 -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , y ie ld in g agu id el in e ran ge of 3 3 t o 4 1 m on th s i n pr is on . At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atMat th ews ’s gu id el in e ran ge di d n otpro vi de fora su ffi ci en t p un is hm en t an d, fo ll owi ng th e 3go ve rn m en t’s re co m m en da ti on , sen te nc edhe r to 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t fi na nc ia l cr im es su ch as M at th ews ’s were “pa rti cu la rly tro ub li ng ” b ecau se in di vi du al s wh o c omm it te d t ho se cri m es di d s o kno win gl y , with “ care fu l ca lc ul at io n a ndde li be rat io n a ndm al ic e afo retho ug ht .” The c ou rt al so st res se d t ha t M at th ews ’s off en se in vo lv edne arl y

$5 00 ,00 0 i n i nt en de d l os s; th atsh e h adm ad e in co ns is te ntst at em en ts to pre tri al an d p ro ba ti on off ic ers ; an d th atsh e h ada “ ve ry

subs ta nt ia l” cri m in al hi st ory . On ap pe al , Matth ews arg ue s th athe r se nt en ce o f 60 m on th s was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . II. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard .” Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 91 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . “ The rev ie w forsubs tant iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). 2 Under § 3553(a) , the sentenc ing c ourt shall impose a sentenc e “suf ficient, but not 2 greater than ne cessa

ry” to comply

with the purposes of se ntencingset forth in § 3553(a )(2) , which include the need to r efle ct the seriousness of the off ense, pr omote respe ct for the law, provide just punishment for the off ense, de ter c riminal conduct, a nd protec t the public from the defe ndant’s crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) . Other f actor s to be consider ed in imposing the sentenc e include the natureand cir cumstance s of the off ense, thehistory

and cha rac teristics of the def endant, the a

vailable se ntence s, the Guidelines’ policy and applica

ble ra ng e, the ne ed to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc e disparities, a nd the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . Id. 4If the di st ric t co urt d et erm in es th ata se nt en ce o ut si de th e g ui de li ne ran ge is

ap pr op ria te , “ itm

us t co ns id er the ex te ntof t he de vi at io n anden su re tha t the jus ti fic at io n i s s uf

fic ie nt ly com

pe ll in g t o s up po rt t he de gr ee o f th e v ari an ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Howev er, we wil l o nl y rev ers e due to a va ria nc e “ if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S

ha w , 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Inch al le ng in g t he subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f he r se nt en ce, Ma tt he ws m ak es sev eral sp eci fic arg um en ts , whi chwe ad dr es s i n turn. Fi rs t, s he co nt en ds th at , by em

ph as iz in g t he gra vi ty of fi na nc ia l cr im es inge ne ral , th e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y

fai le d t o fo cu s o n h er i nd iv idua l ch arac te ris ti cs . Howev er, a d is tri ct co urt i s p erm it te d t o c on si de r th e g en eral ser io us ne ss of ast atut ory off en se when th e d efen da ntha s b een co nv ic te d o f th atoff en se . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in , 45 5 F.3 d 1 22 7, 1 24 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (di sc us si ng th e g en eral ne ga ti ve ch arac te ris ti cs of whi te co ll ar cr im es inass es si ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce); Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 95 -9 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) § 3553(a) (1), ( 3)-( 7). 5(d is cu ss in g t he ha rm s caus edge ne ral ly by ch il d p orno gr ap hy in a na lyzin g the reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e). Thu s, we d is cern no erro r in th is reg ard . Seco nd , Mat th ews arg ue s t ha t h er g ui de li ne ran ge alr eady acco un te d fo r th e se rio us ne ss of h er o ffen se , gi ve n t ha t s he rece iv eda 14 -le ve l en ha nc em en t b as ed on th e am ou ntof l os s ex ceed in g $ 40 0,0 00 . Whi le th atm ay be so , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d s ti ll co ns id er the lo ss am ou ntas afact orwarran ti ng a va ria nc e u nd er § 3 55 3( a). Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 62 8 F .3d12 58 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng th ata di st ric t co urt ca n i m po se a va ria nc e b as edon fact or s t ha t i t h ad al read y co ns id eredinap pl y in g agu id el in e en ha nc em en t), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 21 66 (20 11 ). Mo reo ve r, be si de s re su lt in g i n s ub st an ti al m on et ary lo ss , Mat th ews ’s off

en se in vo lv edrep eat edde po si ts of s to le n c he ck s o ve r a p ro lo ng ed pe rio d o f ti m e, an d, as th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , su chco nduc t re qu ire d “ care fu l cal cu la ti on an d d el ib erat io n.” The co urt co ul d ri gh tl y vi ew th is as a n a gg rav at in g fact or inde te rm in in g t he len gt h o f th e se nt en ce. Se e Ma rt in , 45 5 F .3dat 1 24 0 (“ Bec au se eco no mic an d fr au d- ba se d c rimes are m or e rat io na l, co ol , and cal cu la te d t ha n s ud de n c rimes of pa ss io n o r op po rtu ni ty, th es e cri m es are p rime can di da te s fo r ge ne ral de te rren ce.” (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) ). Thi rd , Mat th ews arg ue s t ha t the in co ns is te nc ie s i n h er p os t-a rres t s ta te m en ts were n otm ad e in te nt io na ll y an d, thu s, d idno t warran t a s en te nc e ab ov e th e

6gu id el in e ran ge . Howev er, g iv enth atpe rs on s g en eral ly hav e fi rm kn owl ed ge ab ou t the ir b as ic pe rs on al hi st or ie s, s uc h a s wh ere t he y were b orn o r gr ew up , th e di st ric t co urt co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e th atMat th ews ’s in co ns is te ntst at em en ts in th is reg ardwere m ad e d el ib erat el y an d n otsi m

pl y as ares ul t o f m is un de rs ta nd in g o r fo rg et fu ln es s. Fo urth , Mat th ews co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ul d h av e acc ou nt edfor he r cri m in al hi st ory

by im po si ng a gu id el in e d ep artur e rathe r th ana § 3 55 3( a) va ria nc e. Mat th ews ’s cri m in al reco rdis in de edsubs ta nt ia l, i nv ol vi ng sev en se pa rat e co nv ic ti on s an d s ev eral ch arg es forwhi ch sh e h adfai le d t o app ear i n co urt, an d t hi s m ay

well have warran te d a n upwardde partu re und er U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 . Howev er, the co urt’s ab il it y to de part upwa rd s u nd er the Gui de li ne s d id no t p recl ud e itfro m

im po si ng anup wardva ria nc e in st ead . Se e S ha w , 56 0 F .3dat 12 40 (affi rm in g a n upwa rdva rianc e u nd er § 35 53 (a), ev enth ou gh th e d is tri ct co urt h addi sc ret io n t o app ly an upwa rdde pa rtu re u nd er the Gui de li ne s) . Fi na ll y , Mat th ews ass ert s t ha t the di st ric t co urt’s v ari an ce o f 19 m on th s be y on d t he up pe r en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge res ul te d i n a n u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g di sp ari ty. Howev er, s he po in ts to no co m pa rat or s “ with s im il ar re co rd s wh o h av e be enfou ndgu il ty of si m il ar co nduc t.” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(6 ). An upward va ria nc e b y

it se lf d oe s n otin di cat e anun warra nt edsen te nc in g d is parit y . 7Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m ita cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t i n de te rm in in g t ha t an ab ov e-g ui de li ne , 60 -m on th sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te for Mat th ews un de r § 3 55 3( a), g iv enth e se rio us ne ss of h er o ffen se , herm en da ci ty, an d, m os t i m

po rta nt ly, he r subs ta nt ia l cr im in al hi st ory . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(2 ); Sh aw , 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 7- 41 (up ho ld in g a s re as on ab le a 12 0- m on th sen te nc e th atsi gn ifi can tl y ex ceed edth e g ui de li ne ran ge of 3 0 t o 3 7 m on th s, in lar ge pa rt due to th e d efen dant ’s ext en si ve cri m in al hi st ory ); se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Cla

y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ The weig htto be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e di st ric t co urt.” ( qu ot at io n o m it te d) ). W e al so no te th atMat th ews ’s 5-year se nt en ce fe ll far b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um of 3 0 years f

oreachco un t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 4; Gon za le

z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4 (c on cl ud in g tha t a s en te nc e was reas on ab le inpa rt b ecau se itwas wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um ). Becaus e Mat th ews ’s sen te nc e o f 60 m on th s was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

8