1The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation in the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-3813MN

_____________

United States of America, *

 * On Appeal from the United

Appellee, * States District Court

 * for the District of

v. * Minnesota.

 *

Linda P. Whitehead, * [Not To Be Published]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 4, 1999

 Filed: August 16, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Linda P. Whitehead appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after she

pleaded guilty to one count of honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1341 and 1346. We affirm.

The government charged Whitehead, a former United States Probation Officer,

with accepting numerous items of shoplifted clothing from Karen Pluff, a person under
-2-

Whitehead's supervision, in exchange for such preferential treatment as submitting false

urine samples on Pluff’s behalf. It is undisputed that Whitehead told the probation

officer preparing the presentence report (PSR) that the total value of the merchandise

she received from Pluff was approximately $500; that she had submitted someone

else’s urine on Pluff’s behalf on only four occasions during the five years she

supervised Pluff; and that she had done so because of threats she had received from

Pluff’s brother, James “Buddy” Pluff. 

Whitehead objected to the PSR’s failure to recommend a two-level acceptanceof-responsibility reduction in light of the following factors: she had provided the FBI

with a written confession, consented to a search of her residence, and resigned from her

job on the day of her arrest; and she had promptly pleaded guilty. At sentencing, Pluff

testified that Whitehead had had her submit between twenty and thirty false urine

samples, and that the total value of the shoplifted clothing she gave Whitehead was

well over $2,000. Buddy Pluff testified he had never threatened Whitehead.

The District Court, crediting the Pluffs’ testimony, found that the value of the

shoplifted clothing exceeded $2,000 and that Buddy Pluff had not threatened

Whitehead. After denying Whitehead an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction,

because she had falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct the Court had

determined to be true, the Court sentenced Whitehead to one year imprisonment and

three years supervised release.

 We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Whitehead

was not entitled to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United States v.

Morris, 139 F.3d 582, 584 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). The

Court found that the total value of the shoplifted items Whitehead received from Pluff

exceeded the amount to which Whitehead had admitted, and that Whitehead had not

been threatened by Buddy. The Court also generally credited Pluff’s testimony

indicating Whitehead submitted more false urine samples on Pluff’s behalf than
-3-

Whitehead asserted in the PSR. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1,

comment (n.1(a)) (1998); United States v. Ngo, 132 F.3d 1231 (8th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Stockton, 968 F.2d 715, 721 (8th Cir. 1992).

We also reject Whitehead’s argument that the District Court violated her due

process rights by crediting Karen Pluff’s testimony in applying a one-level amount- ofloss enhancement. See United States v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 516 U.S. 892 (1995). Finally, we conclude the District Court’s statement

concerning the need to punish Whitehead and deter others constitutes sufficient

compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Adams, 104 F.3d 1028,

1031 (8th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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