UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YOLANDA MEDINA POZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cr-00830-HMH-2)

Submitted: November 22, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Medina Poz appeals her forty-six month 

sentence following her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit tax 

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006) and mail fraud in 

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011). We affirm.

Poz first argues that the district court erred in 

applying a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1 (2010). Pursuant to USSG 

§ 3B1.1(a), a four-level enhancement may be imposed if “the 

defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that 

involved five or more participants or was otherwise 

extensive[.]” A district court need only find the facts 

supporting a § 3B1.1(a) enhancement by a preponderance of the 

evidence. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238 

(4th Cir. 1989). In reviewing the district court’s calculations 

under the Guidelines, this court “review[s] the district court’s 

legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear 

error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether 

to apply an enhancement based on a defendant’s role in the 

offense is a factual determination reviewed on appeal for clear 

error. United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir.

2009). 
3

There is evidence that Poz maintained thorough records 

of the fraudulent activity, advised other participants, arranged 

the collection of paperwork and distribution of fraudulent 

returns, and received a monetary benefit from each transaction. 

Further, there is evidence that the scheme involved a 

substantial amount of tax fraud. We therefore conclude that the 

district court did not clearly err in its finding.

Poz also argues that the district court misapplied the 

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and that the 

court failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for its 

selected sentence. Because the issue was preserved on appeal, 

review in this court is for harmless error. United States v. 

Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court 

explained its reasons for selecting a sentence at the high end 

of the Guidelines range by discussing the degree, scope, and 

nature of Poz’s conduct. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 

325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must make an 

“individualized assessment” based on the facts of the case, 

though that assessment need not be lengthy or elaborate). We 

conclude that the district court adequately stated its grounds 

for the within-Guidelines sentence and therefore did not err. 

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED