IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40355

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EUNEISHA HEARNS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-93-2

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Euneisha Hearns appeals her 46-month, within-guidelines sentence for 

conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Hearns’s sentence includes a 14-level 

enhancement based on attributable losses of $ 865,940.18 from 10 transactions 

involving her submission of fraudulent mortgage loan applications. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). Hearns challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

that she was a knowing participant in six of those transactions, evidence of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40355 Document: 00514236557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 17-40355

2

which was not introduced at trial but which the district court found to be

“relevant conduct” under the Guidelines. See § 2B1.1(b)(1); U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.3(a)(2); United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232, 242 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Hearns concludes that the court erred by attributing the losses resulting from 

those six transactions to her for purposes of calculating her sentence.

The presentence report (PSR), supported by the affidavit and testimony 

of Rodney Connor, reflects that Hearns prepared and submitted mortgage loan 

applications for the six properties at issue containing material 

misrepresentations about the borrowers’ finances and falsely stating that the 

borrowers would provide funds for the down payment and closing costs. Such 

funds were in reality provided by members of the conspiracy. The borrowers

stated that they did not supply the false information to Hearns. Additionally,

two of Hearns’s accomplices confirmed that Hearns knew at the time that the 

borrowers were not providing their own down payment and closing funds, thus 

contradicting her representations to the lenders.

Beyond making conclusory assertions, Hearns does not challenge the 

reliability of the PSR or other evidence. See United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 

152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745, 759 (5th Cir. 

2007). Nor does she dispute that the loan applications she submitted for the 

relevant properties were materially false. She argues only that there is no

direct evidence that she falsified any of the information or had actual 

knowledge of any material falsity at the time. From the facts contained in the 

PSR, however, the district court could plausibly infer that Hearns submitted 

those loan applications knowing that they contained materially false 

information about the borrowers’ finances and the source of the down payment 

and closing funds. See United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 

2010) (holding that a factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible 

 Case: 17-40355 Document: 00514236557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 17-40355

3

in light of the record as a whole). The district court thus had a sufficient 

evidentiary basis for attributing the resulting losses to Hearns. See Bernegger, 

661 F.3d at 242.

With respect to the ensuing issue of whether Hearns’s fraudulent actions 

constituted “relevant conduct” under the Guidelines, she fails to provide 

adequate briefing. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 

2010). As a result, Hearns fails to show that the district court’s “relevant 

conduct” determination or its attribution of loss under § 2B1.1(b)(1) was clearly 

erroneous. See United States v. Reasor, 541 F.3d 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See United States v. 

Fernandez, 770 F.3d 340, 342, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40355 Document: 00514236557 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2017