## The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 

## District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3849

___________ United States of America, *

Appellee, *
v. * District Court for the Matthew Gregg Carman, *

Appellant. * *
* Appeal from the United States
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
* [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: May 28, 1997 Filed: June 2, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Gregg Carman appeals the 24- month sentence imposed by the District Court after he pleaded 1 guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 4 (1994) (misprision of felony) by knowingly concealing a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 195 7 (1994) (prohibiting monetary transactions that exceed $10,000 and involve proceeds of “specifie d unlawful activity” if defendant knows that funds are criminally derived). We affirm.

## -2- Carman was president of M.A.T.T. Enterprises; M.A.T.T.’s vice-president and secretary-treasurer was Alica Ives. Ives, who was also chief financial officer for Fleming Electric, Inc., embezzled $471,100 fro m Fleming by f

orging checks made payable to M.A.T.T. On August 12, 1995, after Fleming officials discovered the embezzlement and confronted her, Ives closed M.A.T.T.’s bank account , receiving a $108,000 cashier’s check which she turned over to Fleming. That night, Carman and Ives met with an attorney to sever their busines s relationship. Ives received M.A.T.T. (the corporation), and Carman received M.A.T.T.’s property. On August 14 , 1995, Carman wrote a $100,000 check on M.A.T.T.’s closed bank account and deposited the check in a n account he had opened that day. By the time the bank discovered the mistake, it had suffered a $36,500 loss. Ives was later convicted of mail fraud. Carman argues for the first time on appeal that the District Court erred in calculating his sentence by imposing a two-level increase applicable if the defendant knew that the f unds were "not merely criminally derived, bu t were in fact the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 2S1.2(b)(1) (B) commentary n.1 (1995). Carman admits that the funds were derived from the specifie d unlawful activity of mail fraud, see U.S . Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.2 commentary n.1 (1995) (stating th at“specified unlawful activity” is defined to include racketeering offenses, drug offenses, and most othe r serious federal crimes), but contends that the government did not prove that he knew the funds were proceeds of mail fraud. We conclude that plain error did not occur as Ives testified at sentencing that she told Carman how she obtained the money during their August 12 meeting
. See United States v. Fritsch , 891 F.2d 667, 668 (8th Cir. 1989) (standard of review). We also conclude that the District Co urt did not clearly err when it imposed a three-level increase based on the val ue of the funds. SeeU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.2(b)(2) (1995). Ives deposite d $471,100 of Fl eming’s money into M.A.T.T.’s bank account and, after learning that the money was illegall y obtained, Carman kept all of M.A.T.T.’s assets, which had been purchased with this money. See

## -3-

id. (referencing § 2S1. 1(b)(2) which provides for three-level enhancement if value of funds exceeds $350,000); United States v. Leahy , 82 F.3d 624, 637 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Furthermore, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it imposed a two-level increase for obstruc ting justice as there was evidence presented at sentencing from which the District Court could conclude that Car man threatened a witness during the official investigation. SeeU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 3C1.1 c ommentary nn.3(a), 6 (1995) (stating that threatening witness is conduct warranting obstructio n enh ancement); United States v. Sykes , 4 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in basing this decision on the threatene d individual’s hearsay statements. See United States v. Cas sidy , 6 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that court may consider relevan

t hearsay testimony at sentencing provided testimony has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy; standard of review). Finally, we c onclude that the District Court did not clearly err by denying Carman an acceptance-of

res ponsibility reduction. See United States v. Nguyen , 52 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); seealso U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 commentary n.4 (1995) (noting that conduct resulting in obstruction enhancement “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct”). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.