The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, Chief Judge, United

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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. She challenges

the district court’s refusal to allow her to withdraw her guilty plea, and 1

the court's application of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 (1995) for abusing a position of private trust.

We affirm.

The section 3B1.3 enhancement applies when a district court

determines a defendant has abused a position of private trust in a manner

that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment
-2-

of the offense. We give 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 undisputed facts in the presentence report (PSR) show that over

a period of three years, 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. Before she left on maternity

leave in June 1995, she trained a teller to perform the vault duties,

instructing her to add the amount noted on a slip of paper to the vault

total each day so the amounts would balance. When another teller--who was

filling in for the teller whom Clause had trained--forgot to add in the

amount noted on the slip of paper, the embezzlement was discovered. Based

on these facts, we do not believe the district court clearly erred in

assessing the enhancement. See United States v. Fisher, 7 F.3d 69, 71 (5th

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 factual matter in the PSR, we reject Clause’s argument that the

district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before assessing

the enhancement. See United States v. LaRoche, 83 F.3d 958, 959 (8th Cir.

1996) (per curiam).

Clause'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 of

sentencing--Clause argued that
-3-

her guilty plea was involuntary as unknown persons had repeatedly

telephoned her after her initial not-guilty plea, threatening to harm her

family if she did not plead guilty.

The district court concluded that Clause had not established a fair

and just reason to withdraw her plea, given her assurances at the changeof-plea hearing that her guilty plea was not the result of any threats, and

that it was given freely and voluntarily. The court also noted that Clause

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 denying Clause's Rule 32(e)

motion, or in refusing to grant her a continuance to garner evidence to

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. denied, 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.