## 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- 29 67

__ __ __ __ __ _ 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 M is so ur i.

* Kim A. Brown
, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 2 Fi le d: March 19 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Kim Bro wn ch al le ng es th e se ve nt y -two -m on th se nt en ce i mp o se d by th e Dis tri ct C o u r t aft er sh e pl ead ed gu il ty to si xt een co un ts of ba nk frau d, 18 U.S.C. 1 § 1 34 4. We affi rm

.

Bro wn de frau de d h er em pl oyer, a sm al l, fa m il y -o wne d s he et -m et al bu si ne ss , b y fo rg in g ch eck s dr awn on he r em pl oyer’s ba nk acco un ts an d de po si ti ng t h o s e ch eck s in to he r pe rs on al ba nk acco un ts

. Ove r a te n- y ear pe rio d, Bro wn fo rg ed m or e

The Hon or ab l e D e a n W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.th an 47 0 ch eck s an d em be zzl ed ap pr ox im at el y $8 00 ,00 0. The Dis tri ct Co ur t

se nt en ced Bro wn to se ve nt y -two m on th s’ im pr is on m en t— an up ward va ria nc e fro m th e se nt en ci ng ran ge of th irt y -t h r ee to fo rty-on e m on th s’ im pr is on m en t cal cu la te d

un de r t h e U

. S

. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l. Bro wn arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce is

gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to fu rth er th e st at ut or y go al s of se nt en ci ng an d do es no t refl ect
ap pr op ria te co ns id erat io n o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s.

W e rev ie w th e im

po si ti on of a se nt en ce un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n
st an da rd

. Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. W e “ fir st en su r e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d no si gn ifi can t p ro ced ur al erro r, su ch as f ai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s” se nt en ci ng ran ge ; “ fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s” ; or “ fai li ng t o a d e q u a t el y ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce.” Id

. Alt ho ug h a co ur t co m

m it s pr oc ed ur al erro r if it fai ls to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, it is no t req ui red to reci te each of th e fact or s o n t h e reco rd
, no r is it req ui red to ad dr es s each arg um en t rai se d by th e de fen da nt

. Uni te d St at e s v

. Barr on , 55 7 F.3 d
86 6, 86 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). If th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no pr oc ed ur al erro r, we th en de te rm in e whe th er th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 51

. It is “ t h e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on

m ark s an d c it at io n t o q uo te d c as e o m it te d)

.

The Dis tri ct Co ur t co m

m it te d no pr oc ed ur al erro r in se nt en ci ng Bro wn. Afte r

co ns id eri ng th e un di sp ut ed Gui de li ne s ran ge an d th e pa rti es ’ se nt en ci ng arg um en ts , th e co ur t fo un d th at th e Gui de li ne s ran ge di d no t ad eq ua te ly acco un t fo r th e fact th at Bro wn “ wo r k [ e d ] f

ace- to -fac e in th e sa m e of fic e wit h th e sa m e pe op le fo r

. . . te n
y ears an d se ve n m on th s” as a se em in gl y “ go od
, tru st ed em pl oyee a n d f

r i e n d” who

was “ in a po si ti on of co nf

id en ce an d tru st ” an d y et em be zzl ed al m os t $8 00 ,00 0. Sen t. Tr. at 14
, 15

. The co ur t no te d th at it ha d co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ha d fo cu se d sp eci fic al ly on “ th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th [e] of fen se ,” “ th e hi st or y

-2

-an d ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt ,” an d “ th e se rio us ne ss of th [e] of fen se .” Id

. at 19
, 20

. Alt ho ug h th e co ur t co ns id ered im po si ng a te n- y ear pr is on te rm —“ a y ear in pr is on fo r ev ery y ear y ou st ol e fro m th es e pe op le ”—i t ul ti m at el y de te rm in ed th at a se ve nt y

two -m on th se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te “ fo r th e pu rp os e of pu ni sh m en t, de te rren ce, an d

to se rv e th e en ds of jus ti c e.” Id

. at 15
, 21

. The co ur t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ne d it s
rat io na le fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d, fo cu si ng on al l th e fact s of Bro wn’s cas e as well

as th e ha rm cau se d by he r co nd uc t. The co ur t co m m it te d no pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng 2

erro r.

Bro wn als o arg ue s th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng a

se nt en ce th at is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. “A d i s t r ic t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers on ly ap pr op r i a t e fact or s bu t ne ve rth el es s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v

. Jo ne s, 50 9 F.3 d 91 1, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), cert . den ie d, 5 53 U.S. 10 88 (20 08 )).

Bro wn con te nd s th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t gi ve en ou gh weig ht to cert ai n

m it ig at in g fact or s. W e di sa gr ee. Th e r e c o rd de m on st rat es th at th e co ur t was well

aware of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng Bro wn’s em be zzl em en t. The co ur t rev ie wed
Bro wn’s Pres en te nc e Rep or t, he ard de fen se co un se l’s de sc rip t i o ns of Bro wn’s
po si ti ve ch arac te ris ti cs an d fam il y ci rcu m st an ces , an d he ard te st im on y fro m Bro wn’s

em pl oyer ab ou t th e im

pa ct he r cri m es ha d on hi s bu si ne ss

. Tha t th e Dis tri ct Co ur t’s

ev al ua ti on of th es e fact s res ul te d in a le ng th ie r se nt en ce th an Bro wn ha d ho pe d fo r

Bro wn arg ue s th at th e co ur t fo cu se d ex cl us iv el y on th e fact th at sh e vi ol at ed 2 he r em pl oyer’s tru st an d co nf

id en ce whi le ig no ri n g ot he r fact or s. As no te d ab ov e, t he reco rd refu te s Bro wn’s as se rti on s, an d th e co ur t ex erci se d it s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n “ to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

. . . an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g a n a pp ro pr ia te sen te nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 5 69 F.3 d 3 74 , 37 9 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-3

-do es no t co ns ti tu te an ab us e o f d i s cret io n. The Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t im po se a

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ct Co ur t.

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

-4

-