# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 19 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Bes si e Ma rie And ers on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 6 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 14 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Bes si e Mar ie And ers on pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of ba nk frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44
, an d on e co un t of ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft
, i n vi ol at io n of 18
U.S.C. § 10 28 A. App lying th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ), th edi st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at And ers on ’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge fo r th e ba nk 1
f r a u d co un t was 15 to 21 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d se nt en ced And ers on to 18

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t on th at co un t, reject in g he r req ue st fo r pr ob at io n. The di st ric t

c o u r t i m po se d th e m an da to ry 24 -m on th co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce fo r th e ag gr av at e d
id en ti ty th eft co un t , s e e 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A, fo r a to ta l se nt en ce of 42 m on th s’
im pr is on m en t.

And ers on co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by fai li ng
to ad eq ua te ly exp la in it s reas on s fo r ch oo si ng th e se nt en ce t ha t i t d id . Becau se sh e di d no t rai se th is ob

jecti on at se nt en ci ng , we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d
St at es v. Ch av arri a-Ort iz , 82 8 F .3d 66 8, 6 71 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

The reco rd m ak es cl ear th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered an d reject ed
And ers on ’s arg um en ts fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e on th e ba nk frau d co un t

. In he r

se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , And ers on se t fo rth he r pe rs on al hi st or y , in cl ud in g th at sh e ha d always wor ke d t o s up po rt h ers el f an d h er s on , so m et im es work in g t wo o r th ree job s t o m ak e en ds m eet . Duri ng th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , def en se co un se l ex pl ai ne d
th at th e of

fen se co nd uc t was ou t of ch arac te r fo r And ers on , wh os e cri m in al hi st or y
cat eg or y was I an d who ha d ne ve r be fo re co m m it te d an y th eft
, de sp it e wor ki ng as a

cas hi er an d as a pe rs on al care at te nd an t fo r th e el de rly. And ers on he rs el f ex pr es se d

rem or se fo r th e cri m e th at sh e ha d co m m it te d an d f

o r t h e im

pa ct th at he r im pr is on m en t wou ld ha ve on he r so n. The go ve rn m en t arg ue d th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge wou ld be ap pr op ria te , ho wev er, in li gh t of of fen se co nd uc t th at

“ in vo lv ed a m on th s- lo ng sp ree whe re And ers on us ed th e acco un t nu m b ers an d
id en ti ti es of v ic ti m s t o g et cas h a dv an ces an d b uy oth er m erch an di se .”

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-In im

po si ng se nt en c e , t h e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it “ ha [d ] ta ke n in to

acco un t th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e in st an t of fen se , as well as th e hi st or y an d
ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt ” an d fo un d th at th e t o t a l 4 2 -m on th se nt en ce was

“ su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry , to affo rd an ad eq ua te de te rren ce of fu tu re

cr i mi n a l co nd uc t.” The di st ric t co ur t la te r reject ed And ers on ’s writ te n m ot io n fo r

reco ns id erat io n, in whi ch sh e rei te rat ed th e arg um en ts th at sh e ha d m ad e du rin g th e

se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n, th ou gh br ie f,

was ad eq ua te in t h i s c a s e

. Th e reco rd sh ows th at th e co ur t co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’

arg um en ts an d ul ti mat el y de te rm in ed th at th e ci rcu m st an ces di d no t warra nt a do wnwar d va ria nc e. See Ch av arri a-Ort iz
, 82 8 F.3 d at 67 1 (“ [W] he re a m at te r is

co nc ep tu al ly si m

pl e, an d th e reco rd m ak es cl ear th at th e se nt en ci ng jud ge co ns id ered
th e ev id en ce an d arg um en ts , th e la w do es no t req ui re th e jud ge to writ e or sa y m or e.” (ci ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 59 (2 00 7) )).

And ers on a l s o arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e

co ns id er t h e t o t a li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces whe n rev ie win g th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a s e n t e n c e , a n d we wil l no t rev ers e ab se nt a sh owi ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n. Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. A
d i s t r i c t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it “ fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or t h a t sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t wei gh t, g iv es si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t com m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 68 8 F.3 d 44 4, 44 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 56 5 F.3 d 43 5, 43 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )).

And ers on co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to gi ve ad eq ua te weig ht to he r
pe rs on al hi st or y an d ci rcu m st an ces

. Sh e al so arg ue s th at sh e is le ss cu lp ab le th an th e he r co co ns pi rat or s, m an y of who m rece iv ed se nt en ces si m il ar to he rs

. In li gh t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n “ to weig h th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a) fact or s in each cas e an d as si gn

so m e fact or s gr eat er weig h t t h an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce,”
Uni te d S ta te s v . Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3d 37 4, 3 79 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) , we fin d n o e rro r in th e

-3

-co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se a Gui de li ne s- ran ge s e n t e n c e , to whi ch we m ay ap pl y a
pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss

. See Ch av arri a-Ort iz
, 82 8 F.3 d at 67 2. And ers on ha s

no t reb ut te d th at pr es um

pt io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo kh oo , 80 6 F.3 d 11 37
, 11 42 (8 th
Ci r. 20 15 ) (n ot in g th at th e di st ric t co u r t c o n s id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d

co nc lu di ng th at th e de fen da nt di d no t reb ut th e pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss gi ve n
to hi s Gu id el in es -ran ge sen te nc e).

The sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-