IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11029

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

LATONYA LANETTE CARSON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-211-2

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

LaTonya Lanette Carson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit 

theft of public funds, access device fraud, and wire fraud; aggravated identity 

theft and aiding and abetting; conspiracy to money launder; money laundering 

and aiding and abetting; and wire fraud and aiding and abetting. In this 

appeal, Carson challenges the district court’s relevant conduct findings with 

 

* 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

August 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11029 Document: 00514602767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018
No. 17-11029

2

regard to the extent of the loss for which she was held accountable at 

sentencing.

The amount of loss resulting from a fraud offense is a specific offense 

characteristic that increases a defendant’s base offense level. U.S.S.G. 

§ 2B1.1(b)(1); United States v. Isiwele, 635 F.3d 196, 202 (5th Cir. 2011). A 

defendant’s relevant conduct is considered in determining her guidelines 

sentencing range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). A defendant is responsible only for the 

amount of loss that was reasonably foreseeable to her and within the scope of 

her agreement. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & comment. (n.3). Our review is for clear 

error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court need only make “a reasonable estimate of the loss,” 

based on its assessment of the evidence in the case, and its loss calculation is 

entitled to appropriate deference. United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 554, 560 

(5th Cir. 2012) (citing § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C))). “The sentencing judge is in 

a unique position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss based upon that 

evidence.” United States v. Hearns, 845 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir.) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2143 (2017). We

“will not upset these findings unless they are implausible in light of the record 

as a whole.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Carson contends that the district court failed to give adequate 

consideration to the question whether there was a jointly undertaken criminal 

activity with respect to the losses that were attributed to her. The court 

determined incorrectly, she contends, that this factor was satisfied because she 

was convicted of conspiracy. Carson asserts that she should have been held 

 Case: 17-11029 Document: 00514602767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2018
No. 17-11029

3

responsible only for sums laundered through two bank accounts that she 

opened.

The record does not support Carson’s contention that the district court 

did not give adequate consideration to the question whether she had engaged 

in a jointly undertaken criminal activity, as that question was squarely 

presented to the court and rejected. The court found implicitly that the losses 

related to fraudulent tax returns filed by coconspirators under two Electronic 

Filing Identification Numbers (EFINs) were within the scope of Carson’s 

jointly undertaken criminal activity. See United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 

1225, 1231 & n.14 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that relevant conduct findings need 

not be explicit and may be implied from adoption of the presentence report). 

That finding was not clearly erroneous. See Hull, 160 F.3d at 269. The 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-11029 Document: 00514602767 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2018