### The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, Chief Judge, Unite d 1 

### States District Court for the District of Nebraska. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3842

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Vickie Sue Clause, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1997 Filed: April 25, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Vickie Sue Clause pleaded guilty to defrauding FirsTier Bank, a federally-insured ban k, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. She challenges the district court’s refusal to allow her to withdraw her guil ty plea, and 1 the court's application of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3 B1.3 (1995) for abusing a position of private trust. We affirm.
The sec tion 3B1.3 enhancement applies when a district cour t determines a defendan t has abused a position of private trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment

### -2-

of the offense. We g ive great deference to a district court's assessment of the enhancement, and will not reverse absent clear error. See United States v. Johns , 15 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 1994).
The undis puted facts in the presentence report (PSR) show that over a period of three yea rs, Clause, the victim bank's currency vault teller, removed cash from the vault reserve box for her personal use. Each time she did so, Clause created a ticket for the amount of embezzled proceeds then outstanding, adding the amount back to the vault total each evening so that the vault appeared to be in balance. Be fore she left on maternity lea ve in June 1995, she trained a teller to perform the vault duties , instr ucting her to add the amount noted on a slip of paper to the vaul t total each day so the amounts would balance. Wh en another teller--who was filling i n for the teller whom Clause had trained--forgot to add in th e amount noted on the slip of paper, the embezzlem ent was discovered. Based on these facts, we do not believe the district court clearly erred i n assessing the enhancement. See United States v. Fisher , 7 F.3d 69, 71 (5t h Cir. 1993) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson , 4 F.3d 904, 916 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1123 (1994); United States v. Brelsford , 982 F.2d 269, 271-73 (8th Cir. 1992). Because neither party objected to any factu al matter in the PSR, we reject Clause’s argument that th e district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before assessin g the enhancement. See United States v. LaRoche , 83 F.3d 958, 959 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Claus e's argument as to withdrawal of her guilty plea also fails
. A district court may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason." Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)
. In support of her Rule 32(e) motion--which she made on the day o f sentencing--Clause argued that

### -3-

her gu ilty plea was involuntary as unknown persons had repeatedl y telephoned her after her initial not-guilty plea, threatening to harm her family if she did not plead guilty.
The distr ict court concluded that Clause had not established a fair and just reason to wi thdraw her plea, given her assurances at the changeof-plea hearing that her guilty plea was not the result of any threats, an d that it was given freely and voluntarily. The court also noted that Claus e was not asserting her legal innocence, and that five and one-half months had passed since the time she tendered her guilty plea. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in d enying Clause's Rule 32(e) motion, o r in refusing to grant her a continuance to garner evidence t o present at an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Yell , 18 F.3d 581 , 582-83 (8th Cir. 1994 ); United States v. Abdullah , 947 F.2d 306, 311 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. den ied , 504 U.S. 921 (1992); United States v. Thompson , 906 F.2d 1292, 1298-99 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 989 (1990). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.