2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-21-2008 

# U SA v . D a vid son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1302

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . D a vid s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1178. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1178NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1257/ 1273/ 1302

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M IC H A E L R Z E P L IN S K I, A ppel l anti n N o. 07- 1257 CO NNI E L YNN DA VI DS ON, A ppel l anti n N o. 07- 1273 KR I S T E N L E AH DAV I DS ON, A ppel l anti n N o. 07- 1302

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N os . 06- cr - 0344- 1, 2 & 3) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2008 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , J O R D A N , a n d A L A R C O N * , C i rcui tJud ges. ( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2008)

_______________ *H onor abl e A r t hurL . A l ar con, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.F or cl ari t yand ease of reference, w e use t he fir stnam es of t he D avidsons. 1 2 _______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . T h ese ap p ea ls co n ce rn c ri m es c o m m itted b yM icha el R ze p li n sk i ( “R ze p li n sk i”), C onni e D avi ds on ( “C onni e”) , and K r i s t en D avi ds on ( “K r i s t en”) . R zepl i ns ki and K r i s t en 1 p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir in g to d e f ra u d th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 8 6 . R z e p lin s k i a ls o p le d g u ilty to in c o m e ta x e v a s io n , in v io la tio n o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 1 . C onni e pl ed gui l t yt o ai di ng and abe t t i ng the fi l i ng of fa l s e cl ai m s , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 287. O n appea l , t heyeac h cont end thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i m pos i ng s ent ence . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng decis i on s. I . Backg r ound B ecause w e w ri t e pri m ari l yfor the b enef i tof the part i es, w e setforth o nlytho se fac t s pert i nentt o t he i s s ues befor e us . R zepl i ns ki w or ked as a G overnm entSer vi ces A g e n c y(“ G S A ” ) P ro g ra m D ire c to r a t F o rt M o n m o u th , N e w Je rse y , an d w a s re sp o n sib le f o r p ro c u rin g a n d a d m in iste rin g IT -re late d c o n tra c ts f o r F o rt M o n m o u th . C o n n ie, w ith w hom R zepl i ns ki w as havi ng an af fai r , al s o w or ked forG SA as an off i ce managerand l ead c us t om err el at i ons m anage ri n For tM onm out h’ s Feder al T echnol ogySer vi ce. H er3

r es pons i bi l i t i es i ncl uded as s i s t i ng i n admi ni s t er i ng contr act s . T hr ough R zepl i ns ki , and w ith C o n n ie’s kn o w ledg e, C o n n ie’s da u g h ter K ri sten o b tai n ed job s fro m tw o co n tr ac tors th a tp r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s t o F o r tM o n mo u t h . Us i n g th e l e v e r a g e o f h i s a u t h o r i t ya tGS A, R zepl i ns ki t ol d t he contr act or s t o hi r e K r i s t en, and theydi d s o, though K r i s t en neve r actual l ydi d anyw or k. For tM onm out h w as bi l l ed forthe w or k t hatK r i s t en neve r per form ed. R zepl i ns ki and C onni e knew thatK r i s t en w as notw or ki ng butw as gett i ng paid w i th g ov ernm ent fund s, y etR zepli nski cont i nu ed to aut ho ri ze t he invoices. R zepl i ns ki act i vel ycover ed up the “no s how ” as pectof K r i s t en’ s j ob byas s ur i ng one of the contr act or s t hatK r i s t en w as w or ki ng and bypr ovi di ng fal s e i nform at i on aboutthe hour s s he s uppos edl yw or ked. R zepli nski al so arr ang ed fo r a com pan ythat he ow ned t o b e hir ed as a s ubcontr act orbya G SA contr act or . T he contr act orpai d R zepl i ns ki ’ s company , even though the companyper form ed no w or k. T he contr act orthen bi l l ed For tM onm outh for the phant om w or k. I n t ot al , t he A r m ypai d $862, 710 forw or k thatR zepl i ns ki ’ s company and K r i s t en neve rper form ed. M eanw hi l e, R zepl i ns ki , w ho w as di vor ci ng hi s w i fe a nd at t empt i ng t o evade di s cl os ur e of hi s true i ncome i n or dert o avoi d pay i ng addi t i onal al i m ony , fai l ed t o fi l e i ncome t ax r eturns for2002, 2003, and 2004, and avoi ded pay i ng $4 7, 08 1 in t axes.R zepl i ns ki pl ed gui l t ybot h t o cons pi r i ng t o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es and t o t ax 2 evas i on, and w as s ent ence d t o 46 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , 3 y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and th e p a ym e n t o f

$ 8 6 2 ,7 1 0 in re stitu tio n , as w e ll as a $ 2 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. K r i s t en pl ed g u il tyto the sam e c o n sp ir ac yan d w as se n tenc ed to 1 8 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, 3 y ea rs s upervi s ed r el eas e, and the paym entof $290, 647 i n r es t i tut i on, as w el l as a $100 s peci al a s s e s s m e n t. C o n n ie p led g u iltyto a id in g a n d a b e tti n g f a lse c laim s a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to 12 m onths and 1 dayof i m pr i s onm ent , 3 y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and the paym entof $ 3 9 5 ,7 1 0 in re stitu tio n , as w e ll as a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the U ni t ed St at es 3 S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s (t h e “ G u id e lin e s ” ). U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 570 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e re v ie w a n a p p e lla n t’ s u ltim a te s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329- 30 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes t o fac t s i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on, and fa ctual fi ndi ngs w i l l onl ybe re v e rs e d if

c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tupone , 4 4 2 F .3 d 1 4 5 , 1 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he governm entcont ends t hatR zepl i ns ki w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence 4 beca us e he a gr eed i n hi s pl ea ba r gai n t o w ai ve “the r i ghtt o fi l e anyappea l . . . w hi ch chal l enges t he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe s ent enci ng courti f thats ent ence fal l s w i t hi n or bel ow the G ui del i ne r ange thatr es ul t s fr om a t ot al G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel of 21. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s Suppl ement al A pp. at9. ) R zepl i ns ki ar gues thathe ca n appea l hi s s ent ence beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tarr i ved ata hi ghert ot al offe ns e l evel than the l evel t o w hi ch he agr eed. I ti s t rue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatR zepl i ns ki ’ s offe ns e l evel i s 22, b u t th e g o v ern m en t m aintains that the w aive r st an d s b ec au se R ze p li n sk i’ s 4 6 -m o n th term of i m pr i s onm ents t i l l fel l w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange thatr es ul t s fr om a t ot al G ui del i nes off ense l evel of 21 , as 46-m on t hs i s the top of the rang e for som eon e w i t h a tot al off ense leve l of 2 1 an d R ze p li n sk i’ s crim inal h ist o rysco re, w h ich p u ts him in C ri m inal H ist o ry C a te g o ry o f

I. H ow ever , s i nce the governm entdi d notm ove t o enfor ce the w ai verand has i ns t ead br i efe d t he i s s ue on the mer i t s , w e w i l l di s pos e of Rzepl i ns ki ’ s appea l on t he m eri t s. 4 A l l t hr ee de fenda nt s w er e convi ct ed pur s uantt o pl ea a gr eement s w i t h t he g o v e rn m e n t. 2 I I . D i s cus s i on 3 A . R zepl i ns ki ’ s A ppeal R zepl i ns ki chal l enges hi s s ent ence on t w o gr ounds . Fi r s t , he ar gues that , w hen 4Sect i on 3D 1. 2 of the G ui del i nes s t at es that“[a ] l l count s i nvol vi ng s ubs t ant i al l ythe 5 sa m e h a rm sh a ll b e g ro u p e d to g e th e r in to a sin g le G ro u p . C o u n ts in v o lv e su b sta n tially th e sa m e h a rm w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th is ru le: ( a) W hen count s i nvol ve the s ame vi ct i m and the s ame actortr ans act i on. ( b) W hen count s i nvol ve the s ame vi ct i m and tw o orm or e ac t s ortr ans act i ons connec t ed bya comm on cr i m i nal obj ect i ve orcons t i tut i ng par tof a c om m on s cheme or pl an. (c) W hen on e of the cou nts em bo dies con du ctthat i s treat ed as a specifi c off ense charact eri st i c i n, or adj ust m ent t o, t he g uidel i ne ap pli cable t o an otherof the cou nts . ( d) W hen the off

ens e l evel i s det erm i ned l ar gel yon t he bas i s of the t ot al amount of h a rm o r lo ss , the q u a n tityo f a su b sta n c e in v o lv e d , o r so m e o th e r m e a su re o f a g g re g a te harm , or i f t he o ffen se beha viori s ong oing or con t i nu ou s i n n ature and the o ffen se g u id e lin e is w ri tte n to c o v e r s u c h b e h a v io r.” 5 c a lcu latin g h is a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e , the D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t g ro u p in g h is c o u n ts o f c o n v ic tio n u n d e r G u id e lin e s § 3 D 1 .2 . H e as s ert s thatthe fa l s e cl ai m s and t ax ev asio n co u n ts sho u ld h av e b ee n g rou p ed tog ethe r be ca u se, un d er § 3 D 1 . 2 (d), th eyare offe ns es of the s ame gener al t ype s i nce theyboth i nvol ved a monet aryobj ect i ve. H e al so a rg u e s th a t u n d e r § 3 D 1 .2 (b ) t h e o f f e n s e s in v o lv e d th e s a m e v ic tim , i . e. , the g o v e rn m e n t, and s har e the comm on obj ect i ve of t aki ng m oneyfr om the governm ent . Fi nal l y , he cont ends that , al t hough T hi r d C i r cui tpr ece dentpr ecl udes gr oupi ng fr aud and t ax eva s i on count s under§ 3D 1. 2( c) , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d s t i l l have gr ouped the count s under that s ub sect i on becau se the fa l se cl ai m s cond uct em bo died a speci fi c off ense c h a ra c ter istic in th e G u id e lin e p ro v isio n f o r th e tax e v a sio n c o u n t. 5 R zepl i ns ki ’ s gr oupi ng ar gum ent s fai l . T he fa l s e cl ai m s countand the t ax eva s i on countcannotbe gr ouped under§ 3D 1. 2( b) beca us e theydo noti nvol ve s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame har m . T heycannotfai r l ybe s ai d t o be conne ct ed bya comm on cr i m i nal obj ect i ve,6

no r w ere theypartof a c om m on schem e or pl an. P ut s i m ply , R zepli nski’ s fr aud against the A r m yw as nots i gni fi cant l yr el at ed t o hi s eff or t s t o chea thi s es t r anged w i fe of a lim o n yb yh id in g h is tru e in c o m e . A lth o u g h h is a d m itt e d o b jec tiv e in c o m m itt in g b o th cr i m es w as t o enr i ch hi m s el f, t hatm eans l i t t l e s i nce gr eed mot i vat es a w i de var i etyof cr i m es . A s w e s t at ed i n U nited S tates v. B ush , w hen cons i der i ng w hethert o gr oup count s , court s m us tr emem bert hat“ea ch cr i m e has i t s ow n nuance s and mustbe ev alua ted o n it s o w n . ” 5 6 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). Si m i l ar l y , t he count s cannotbe gr ouped under§§ 3D 1. 2( c) or( d) . R zepl i ns ki conce des thatourpr ece dentpr ecl udes gr oupi ng fr aud and t ax eva s i on count s under s u b s e c tio n (c ), w h ic h is w h o lly d is p o s itiv e o f th e a rg u m e n t p e rt a in in g to th a t s u b s e c tio n . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . V

ita le , 159 F. 3d 810, 814- 15 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng i tw as i m pr oper t o gr oup t ax eva s i on and w i r e fr aud count s under3D 1. 2( c) beca us e the count s i nvol ved d if f e re n t typ e s o f

c o n d u c t an d h a rm , an d a se n ten c e re su lti n g f ro m g ro u p in g w o u ld f

a il t o re p re se n t th e sig n if

ica n c e o f th e c rim in a l co n d u c t em b o d ied in e a c h c o u n t); U ni t ed Stat es v. A storri , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t f ra u d a n d tax e v a sio n c o u n ts w ere p rop erlyn o t gro u p ed u n d er 3 D 1 . 2 (c) b ec au se th e e lem en ts of the c ri m es w ere d is tin g u is h a b le ). E ven though § 3D 1. 2( d) pr ovi des an ar guabl e bas i s forgr oupi ng, i tw oul d be i m pr opert o gr oup t he count s agai ns tR zepl i ns ki beca us e theyar e notof the s ame gener al type. I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sel igs ohn , w e no t ed thatthe p urpose o f § 3 D 1. 2 is t o “im po se7

‘ i n c r e me n t a l p u n i s h me n tf o rs i g n i f i c a n ta d d i t i o n a l c r i mi n a l c o n d u c t , ’ b u ta tth e s a me t i me pr eventdoubl e puni s hm entfores s ent i al l ythe s ame conduct . ” 981 F. 2d 1418, 1425 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tol er , 9 0 1 F . 2 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 2 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . We e m p h a siz e d th a t, ev e n th o u g h su b se c tio n (d ) m a yb ro a d lya llo w g ro u p in g o f c e rta in offe ns es , t hat“does notm ean thatt he count s m us tbe gr ouped. C ount s m us tbe of the

‘ s ame gener al t ype’ befor e gr oupi ng i s appr opr i at e. ” I d. W e th e n d istin g u ish e d m a il f ra u d f ro m tax e v a sio n , n o tin g th a t g ro u p in g su c h o f f e n se s w o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te beca us e they“di ffe r ed i n natur e and w er e notan es s ent i al partof orr el at ed t o [ea ch other ] . ” I

d. In k e e p in g w ith th a t re a so n in g , w e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in r efus i ng t o gr oup R zepl i ns ki ’ s offe ns es unders ubs ect i on ( d) . A gai n, the theftof m oney f r o m th e g o v e r n me n ta n d h i d i n g i n c o me f r o m o n e ’ s s p o u s e a r e n o to f f e n s e s o f th e s a me g e n e ra l typ e a n d w e re n o t s ig n if ic a n tly re la te d to o n e a n o th e r h e re . R zepl i ns ki ’ s s econd a r gum enti s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotm aki ng sp e c if ic f a c tu a l f in d in g s re late d to re stitu tio n , an d th a t th e a m o u n t o f re stitu tio n o rd e re d is in c o rre c t. T hatar gum entfai l s beca us e the governm entpr ovi ded ade quat e evi dence s e ttin g f o rt h h o w th e s u m o f

$ 8 6 2 ,7 1 0 re f

le c ts th e lo s s s u f

f e re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. W e s ee no e rr ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s acc ept i ng thatevi dence . B . K r i s t en’ s A ppeal K r i s t en ar gues t hatt he s ent ence thatw as i m pos ed forherpart i ci pat i on i n t he c o n s p ir a c yis u n re a s o n a b le a n d d o e s n o t c o m p o rtw ith th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . §R emar ks dur i ng t he s ent enci ng col l oquyi ndi cat e thatK r i s t en di d notfi l e a mot i on for 6 dow nw ar d departur e bas ed on herm ent al condi t i on butthats he s oughtt o embodythe b a se s f o r su c h a d e p a rtu re in h e r a rg u m e n t f o r a v a ria n c e u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 . O n a p p e a l, K ri sten d o es n o t argu e in term s o f a d ep arture. R athe r, sh e c h all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s app l i cat i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. 8 3 5 5 3 (a). She al s o cl ai m s t hats he s houl d have be en des i gnat ed a “ m i norpart i ci pant ” and thus r ece i ved a tw o- l evel m i t i gat i ng r ol e r educt i on, beca us e R zepl i ns ki or gani zed the s cheme and s he mer el yw ental ong. I n herfi r s tar gum ent , K r i s t en mai nt ai ns thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have i m pos ed a s ent ence bel ow t he G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed upon herhi s t oryand per s onal char act er i s t i cs . I m pl i ci ti n t hatas s ert i on, of cour s e, i s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not 6 appl ythe § 3553( a) fac t or s . B ut , contr aryt o t hatcl ai m , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ement s at s ent enci ng s how ed thati tdi d cons i derK r i s t en’ s hi s t oryand per s onal char act er i s t i cs under § 3553( a) . H erdi s agr eementw i t h t he r es ul t i ng s ent ence does notm ake the s ent ence s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . B eca us e the s ent ence does m eetthe s t andar d of s ubs t ant i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s , w e w ill n o t d is tu rb it. See U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “I f w e det erm i ne thatt he di s t r i ctcour thas comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cant pr ocedur al err or , w e then r evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan a b u s e -o f -d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd ... .” ). . K riste n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t sh e sh o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a tw o -le v e l m iti g a tin g ro le r educt i on pur s uantt o § 3B 1. 2( b) of the G ui del i nes forbei ng a mi norpart i ci panti n t he fr aud i s l i kew i s e unper s uas i ve. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes9

to f a c ts f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , an d f

a c tu a l f in d in g s w ill o n lyb e re v e rse d if c lea rly e rr o n e o u s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tupone , 442 F. 3d 145, 149 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n or dert o r ece i ve a t w o-l evel m i t i gati ng rol e reducti on , the d efen dan t“m ustbe les s cul pab l e t han m ost o th e r p a rt ic ip a n ts ” in th e o f f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , A p p lic a tio n N o te 5 (2 0 0 8 ). “H ow ever , t he mer e fa ctt hata def endantw as l es s cul pabl e than hi s co- defe ndant s does notent i t l e the def

endantt o ‘ m i norpar t i ci pant ’ s t atus as a mat t erof l aw . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Br o wn , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). C o u rt s m u st co n side r a d ef en d an t’ s i nv olvem ent, kn ow l edg e, and culpabi l i t yw hen determ i ning w hetherthe d efen dan ti s a m in o r p a rticip a n t, an d o n lyg ra n t th e ro le r e d u c tio n to a d e f e n d a n t w h o is “ su b sta n tially l es s cul pabl e than the ave r age pa r t i ci pant . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Isa za -Za

p a ta , 148 F. 3d 236, 2 3 8 -3 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t K riste n e a rn e d n e a rly$ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 in p ro c e e d s f

ro m th e f a ls e c la im s . Fur t herm or e, s he w as an ac t i ve and know i ng par t i ci pant i n the fr aud, as s he di s hones t l yfi l l ed outt i m e ca r ds s he knew w oul d be s ubm i t t ed t o t he g o v e rn m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in det erm i ni ng t hatK r i s t en w as nota mi norpart i ci panti n t he cr i m e. C . C onni e’ s A ppeal C onni e ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o r eas onabl yappl ythe fa ct or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i n hercas e, t hus m aki ng hers ent ence unr eas onabl e. A l t hough s he does notdi s put e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n a § 3553( a) anal y s i s , s he cl ai m s thatthe D is tr ic t C o u rt im p o s e d to o h ig h a s e n te n c e . S h e m aintains that, h ad the D istri ct C o u rt10

pr oper l yw ei ghed the § 3553( a) fac t or s , i tw oul d have or der ed non- cus t odi al pr obat i on in s te a d o f

g iv in g h e r p ri s o n tim e . I n s uppor tof a s ent ence of pr obat i on, C onni e ar gues thats he w as a mi norpart i ci panti n t he s cheme and thatherabi l i t yt o not i fyauthor i t i es aboutthe fr aud w as compromi s ed byherconce r n forhertr oubl ed daught erand her eage rnes s forK r i s t en t o have a n i ncome and heal t h i ns ur ance . She al s o s t at es thather per s onal hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs s uppor ta more l eni ents ent ence beca us e s he i s 62 y ear s ol d, has a col l ege e ducat i on, has no pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t ory , and has “emot i onal sca rs” f rom b eing a v ict im o f d o m esti c v iolen ce y ea rs ea rl ier. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d C o n n ie’ s in v o lv e m e n t in th e sc h e m e a n d , tho u g h it d e e m e d h e r a m in o r p a rticip a n t, i t n o ted th a t sh e h a d k n o w led g e o f th e f ra u d y e t f

a iled to r evea l i t , as herpos i t i on of trus tw i t hi n t he governm entr equi r ed. St i l l , i n cons i der at i on of h e r m in o r r o le , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d h e r a t th e b o tto m o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e ju d g m e n t in th a t re g a rd w a s re a so n a b le a n d w e ll w ith in th e b o u n d s o f a p p ro p ria te d is c re tio n . I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he r eas ons s t at ed, w e af fi r m the j udgm entand s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D istric t C o u rt.