Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f201800/201849.htm
Timestamp: 2015-01-31 16:32:09
Document Index: 707097965

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§18', '§224', '§371', '§1341', '§1343', '§1346', '§2510', '§3231', '§3742', '§1291', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§3', '§8', '§3231', '§1291', '§3742', '§371', '§1341', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§3', '§3', '§3']

Brief of the United States of America : U.S. v. John F. Triplett
formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. No. 03-14099-DD
JOHN R. FITZPATRICK Attorney
In addition to those named in the Rule 26.1 Statement filed by the appellant,
the following government attorneys have participated in this case in the district
court and in this Court:
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF ISSUES	STATEMENT OF THE CASE	COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS	STATEMENT OF FACTS	SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT	ARGUMENT	STANDARD OF REVIEW
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPLIED A TWO-LEVEL
ENHANCEMENT FOR ABUSE OF TRUST	THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPLIED A FOUR-LEVEL
ENHANCEMENT FOR TRIPLETT'S ROLE IN THE OFFENSE	THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CALCULATING LOSS UNDER USSG §2F1.1 OR IN ORDERING RESTITUTION
FOR THE VICTIM'S LOSS	THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CLEARLY ERR IN
INCLUDING RELEVANT CONDUCT IN CALCULATING THE
OFFENSE LEVEL	THE COURT PROPERLY APPLIED AN ENHANCEMENT FOR
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE	THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT OF THE
INDICTMENT	CONCLUSION	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE	TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES
Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511 (1998)	United States v. Andrews, 850 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1988)
United States v. Bagwell, 30 F.3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1994)	United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448 (11th Cir. 1997)	United States v. Behr, 93 F.3d 764 (11th Cir. 1996)	United States v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1992)	United States v. Blanc, 146 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 1998)	United States v. Broderson, 67 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 1995)	United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 2003)	United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir. 1986)	United States v. Castro, 89 F.3d 1443 (11th Cir. 1996)	United States v. Chatman, 982 F.2d 292 (8th Cir. 1992)	United States v. Diaz, 190 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1999)	United States v. Flynt, 15 F.3d 1002 (11th Cir. 1994)	United States v. Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997)	United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998)	United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1984)	United States v. Gomez, 164 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999)	United States v. Gross, 26 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1994)	United States v. Guerra, 293 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002)	United States v. Jolly, 102 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1996)	United States v. Khan, 969 F.2d 218 (6th Cir. 1992)	United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628 (11th Cir. 1990)	United States v. Liss, 265 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2001)	United States v. Maxwell, 34 F.3d 1006 (11th Cir. 1994)	United States v. Parrish, 84 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 1996)	United States v. Petty, 132 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1997)	United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1995)	United States v. Poirier, 321 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2003)	United States v. Renick, 273 F.3d 1009 (11th Cir. 2001)	United States v. Rutherford, 175 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 1999)	United States v. Schneider, 930 F.2d 555 (7th Cir. 1991)	United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2000)	United States v. Smith, 951 F.2d 1164 (10th Cir. 1991)	United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1995)	United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331 (7th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Tatum, 138 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 1998)	United States v. Williams, 334 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003)	United States v. Wilson, 993 F.2d 214 (11th Cir. 1993)	United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)	FEDERAL STATUES AND RULES
18 U.S.C. §18	18 U.S.C. §224(c)(3)	18 U.S.C. §371	18 U.S.C. §1341	18 U.S.C. §1343	18 U.S.C. §1346	18 U.S.C. §2510(6)	18 U.S.C. §3231	18 U.S.C. §3742(a)	28 U.S.C. §1291	Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)	MISCELLANEOUS
USSG §1B1.3	USSG §1B1.3(a)(1)	USSG §1B1.3(a)(2)	USSG §2A3.1(b)(3)	USSG §2A3.2(b)(1)	USSG §2A3.4(b)(3)	USSG §2C1.1	USSG §2C1.5	USSG §2C1.7	USSG §2E5.1(b)(1)	USSG §2F1.1	USSG §2F1.1(b)(1)	USSG §2F1.2	USSG §2G1.1(b)(3)	USSG §2G2.1(b)(2)	USSG §2H1.1(b)(1)	USSG §2P1.1(b)(4)	USSG §3B1.1	USSG §3B1.1(a)	USSG §3B1.3	USSG §3C1.1	USSG §3D1.2(d)	USSG §8A1.1	Webster's Third New International Dictionary	STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3231. This Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291 and 18 U.S.C. §3742(a).
l. Whether the district court clearly erred in enhancing defendant's sentence
for abuse of trust. 2. Whether the district court clearly erred in enhancing defendant's
sentence four levels as a leader/organizer of an activity involving five or more
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in calculating the loss and
ordering restitution.
4. Whether the district court clearly erred in including relevant conduct in
the offense level.
5. Whether the district court clearly erred in enhancing the sentence for
6. Whether there was a constructive amendment of the indictment. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 20, 2002, defendant John F. Triplett was indicted on one
count of violating 18 U.S.C. §371 for conspiring to violate the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, and 1346). The indictment charged that
Triplett, as Senior Project Manager in the parts department of the Henry Pratt
Company (Pratt), conspired to: (a) defraud Pratt; (b) obtain money from Pratt by
means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises; and (c)
deprive Pratt of its right to Triplett's honest services. Triplett carried out the
scheme by, among other things, concealing the true source of certain surplus
equipment he arranged for Pratt to purchase, and by concealing the fact that he
was receiving substantial kickbacks on those purchases. R1:4.(1)
On July 31, 2003, the district court sentenced him to 51 months in prison
and a $10,000 fine, and ordered restitution in the amount of $86,512.02. R107.
Triplett filed a notice of appeal on August 7, 2003. R108. He did not seek
bail pending appeal, and began serving his sentence on October 20, 2003.
Pratt manufactures valves used in water and wastewater treatment plants
and nuclear power plants. R116:3. Nuclear valves are made to exacting
specifications set by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and
all valves must be certified as complying with those specifications before they can
be placed in use. R116:21-23.(2) Every nuclear valve made by Pratt has a unique
serial number that is maintained by Pratt. Pratt also maintains records about the
valve's "pedigree" (materials used and other information about the valve's
manufacture and testing), and the plant where it is to be used. R116:23-25, 87-89;
R123:165.
When a nuclear power plant needs to replace a Pratt valve, it can only use a
Pratt valve that is of the same type as the original. The customer can have Pratt
manufacture a new valve, which takes 42 to 52 weeks, or it can have Pratt
refurbish, retest, and re-certify a surplus valve  a process that takes only four to
eight weeks. Since time is often of the essence, power plant customers regularly
order refurbished valves for replacement. This is done through Pratt's parts
department. R116:5-6, 23-27, 73, 89-91; R124:390.
Pratt does not maintain an inventory of new replacement nuclear valves
because there is limited demand for them. Nor does it maintain an inventory of
surplus valves. Rather, surplus valves and valve parts are purchased when needed
to meet a particular customer's requirements. R116:25-28; R124:388-90. As a
practical matter, only Pratt can rebuild and recertify its own valves, and surplus
Pratt valves are of no use to anyone but Pratt and its customers. R116:27-28, 32-33, 89; R124:412-13.
Triplett worked for Pratt for 30 years until his retirement on December 31,
1997. R116:6, 20. During the time covered by the indictment, Triplett was the
Senior Project Manager in the parts department, reporting directly to the head of
the department, Nick Polito. R116:7. Triplett was Pratt's expert on nuclear valves
and related equipment, and he handled virtually all customer requests for such
materials. R116:8, 23-24, 30; R124:384-86. Thus, Triplett was generally the first
Pratt employee to learn that a nuclear power plant needed a replacement valve. R116:49; R124:386-87. Once Triplett found out that a nuclear plant needed a
replacement valve, he had the responsibility to locate a surplus valve and obtain it
at the lowest possible price. R116:32-33, 102; R123:113, 124-29. Triplett then
would develop a "cost proposal," which recommended (l) a buying price and a
supplier, and (2), a selling price (which included a gross profit margin) to the
customer, that reflected the cost of the valve and other materials, and the cost to
refurbish and recertify the valve. Although the cost proposal needed the approval
of Polito and others at Pratt, Triplett's purchasing and pricing recommendations
were routinely adopted because his superiors relied on his experience and
judgment. R116:33, 37-39, 93-4, 113-14 (Polito never once questioned the
reasonableness of Triplett's price recommendations); also R124:382-84.
Pratt's targeted gross profit margins on nuclear products was 75% to 85%,(3)
but it did not always achieve those levels because of market constraints. R116:74-75, 94-95, 116; R124:412. With respect to the valves involved in this case,
Triplett's buying decisions and resulting cost recommendations yielded profit
margins that fell far short of target levels. R116:106-18; GX 35, 37 (gross profit
margin of 24.24%).(4)
As an employee of Pratt, Triplett was subject to the company's standards of
conduct which prohibited employees from giving or receiving bribes, kickbacks or
any other payments in exchange for purchasing decisions; prohibited employees
from having relationships with suppliers that appeared to have or could cause a
conflict of interest; and prohibited employees from personally profiting from a
business opportunity. GX 28 at 3-6, 8-9. Triplett signed a certification that he
was aware of and in compliance with these standards of conduct. GX 27. Triplett
admitted at trial, however, that he knowingly violated these standards in the course
of his employment by engaging in the acts charged in this conspiracy. R124:451-62.
Pumps, Valves & Equipment, Inc. d/b/a/ The Scruggs Company (Scruggs),
owned and operated by Jimmy and Edwin (Ted) Scruggs, sold pumps, valves, and
other water-related equipment in Texas. R123:139-41. Scruggs had been a
commissioned sales representative and distributor of Pratt water and waste water
treatment valves and products in Texas for many years. R116:57-59; R123:141-44.
Jimmy Scruggs had known Triplett for 30 years through his dealings with
Pratt. Some time prior to January 1996, a representative of J & R Valve Products
(J & R), a Texas company dealing in surplus valves, called Jimmy Scruggs to see
if he would be interested in purchasing in excess of 100 surplus butterfly valves,
which J & R had purchased at auction and valued at a million dollars, but was
willing to sell for $250,000. R123:147-49; GX 105. When Jimmy Scruggs
reviewed the list of valves, however, he realized they were nuclear valves
manufactured by Pratt. He then told J & R he was not interested because there
were no nuclear power plants in Scruggs' Texas territory that used Pratt valves,
and only Pratt or one of its nuclear power plant customers would have a use for
such valves. R123:148-49, 207-08.
A few months later, however, Triplett told Jimmy Scruggs he was looking
for a certain type of Pratt nuclear valve. Jimmy Scruggs remembered the list of
valves he had received from J & R and let Triplett know what was on it. R123:149-50. Triplett told Jimmy they had "got a gold mine." R123:151. Triplett explained that the materials to make the original valves could not be
purchased anymore and if a nuclear plant needed a valve in a hurry they could use
these surplus valves, after having them recertified. R123:151-152. Jimmy told
Triplett that J & R had indicated that the price for the valves was negotiable, and
Triplett told Jimmy to see if they would take $10,000 to $12,000 for the lot. R123:152. Triplett offered to pay half. R123:153. Eventually they negotiated a
price of $17,500 for the 100 or so valves in question. R123:153-54. Triplett told
Jimmy Scruggs to take Triplett's half of the purchase price out of his profits on the
subsequent sales. R123:157. Originally, they anticipated that they would sell the
valves directly to Pratt's power plant customers who would then send the valves to
Pratt to be refurbished. But Triplett later told Jimmy that the power plants did not
want to go through the process of setting up another authorized vendor (which
could take weeks or months), so Triplett and Jimmy Scruggs agreed they would
sell the valves to Pratt for resale to the power plants. R123:157-58; R121:8.
Triplett and Scruggs knew, however, that Pratt would not be willing to buy
the valves from Scruggs. R123:158-160, 236-41; R124:403.(5) If Nick Polito,
Triplett's boss, had known that Scruggs was the source of the valves, he would
have wanted to find out from Jimmy Scruggs why he was selling the valves in the
first place, and, knowing that Scruggs would have no other use for the valves
except to sell them to Pratt, Polito would have been in the driver's seat to bargain
down the price. R116:61-64.
Triplett and Scruggs did not tell Pratt that Triplett himself was part owner of
the valves and would be receiving half the profits of the sales, because then they
never would have been able to execute the scheme. R116:60; R123:176;
R124:413. Indeed, Triplett knew that if Polito was aware of his involvement in
these sales, he would probably have been fired. R116:60; R124:413, 461.
Triplett told Jimmy Scruggs to try to find a company that would front for
Scruggs by shipping the valves to Pratt and putting its name on the invoices. R123: 158-61, 236; R124:403. Jimmy's brother and partner, Edwin (Ted)
Scruggs, then got in touch with his neighbor, Christopher Mealey. Mealy owned a
business called Eurotech Industries, Inc. (Eurotech) that made machine parts. R117:2-3; R123:237-40. Ted explained to Mealy that Pratt would not deal with
Scruggs directly and that they would get a better price for the valves if they were
sold in Eurotech's name. R117:7-10; R123:240-41. Mealey agreed to ship and
invoice the valves through Eurotech in exchange for five percent of the selling
price. R123:161-162, 236-240; R117:7-10.
Triplett and Scruggs purchased the valves from J & R at an average price of
$175. R123:163; GX 101. They then went over the list, valve by valve, and
Triplett told Jimmy Scruggs what prices to charge Pratt for each item on the list. These prices ranged from $3400 for a 6" valve to $16,000 for a 24" valve. GX
105. Eventually 40 of these valves were sold to Pratt through Eurotech for a total
price of $216,755. R123:165-66, 169; GX 9-25, 301.
Each time Triplett found a Pratt customer for one of the valves, he would
notify Jimmy Scruggs who in turn would notify Pam Wayhan, who ran the office
at Eurotech and had been apprised of the scheme (R118:3-4; R117:10-11), that a
purchase order from Pratt would be forthcoming. Jimmy Scruggs would provide
Eurotech with the serial number of the valve to be shipped and the invoice price
that Triplett and Scruggs had worked out. Pam Wayhan then prepared the invoice
and arranged for the shipment. R123:166-75; R117:10-12; R118: 5-6; R124:405-06.
On each sale, Eurotech retained five percent of the selling price and
remitted the remainder to Scruggs. R123:173; R118:8-12. Elaine Scruggs, the
mother of Jimmy and Ted, and the bookkeeper for Scruggs, then transferred
Triplett's half of those profits by wire from the Scruggs' bank in Texas to
Triplett's bank in Illinois and, after Triplett moved to Georgia in 1998, to his bank
in Georgia by wire and check. R123:176-86; GX 140, 141. Eurotech's profits on
these sales totaled approximately $10,000. R117:12. Scruggs and Triplett
received over $100,000 each. R118:12; R123:177-79; GX 140, 516.
In addition to these sales through Eurotech, there were occasions when
Triplett learned from a Pratt customer that it needed a valve or part, and then
arranged with Scruggs to sell the item directly to the customer, depriving Pratt of
the sale and dividing between Triplett and Scruggs the profits that should have
gone to Pratt. R123:186-192; GX 142 (sale of 84" Pratt butterfly valve to
Carolina Power and Light for $35,000); GX 144, 145 (sale of "actuator"(6)
purchased from J & R valve for $150, and sold to City of Ft. Lauderdale for
$3,045).
To refute Triplett's primary, indeed sole, defense that he did not "intend" to
defraud Pratt, the government showed that Triplett had engaged in similar
kickback schemes with other suppliers between 1994 and 1998. Triplett arranged
with Jimmy Matheson of H * E Engineered Equipment Co. (H * E) to have H * E
buy three valves for $1,500 each, which they later sold to Pratt for $13,500 each. Triplett received $17,250 from Matheson out of the profits. R124:303-305; GX
359. Matheson said that if Triplett were not getting half the profits, H * E would
have sold the valves to Pratt for less. R124:306. Triplett also gave Kathy Cain of
Environmental Consulting, Inc. (ECI) information as to where she could purchase
a surplus valve and told her to offer $1,000 for it. R124:318, 323-24. Triplett
then had Pratt buy the same $1,000 valve from ECI for $16,500, getting half the
profit ($7,500) from Cain's employer as a kickback. R124:323, 367-68 (Triplett
admitted scheming with ECI and admitted that if his superiors at Pratt knew ECI
had paid $1,000 for the valve that is all Pratt would have paid); R124:420. And
Triplett was paid a total of $21,400 by Industrial Valve Sales & Service, Inc. (IV)
on sales that IV made to Pratt pursuant to Triplett's purchasing recommendations. R124:352-53; GX 260.
On other occasions, Triplett offered to reduce the price of Pratt parts to a
customer in exchange for receiving half the reduction as a kickback. R124:293-301; R124:420-21 (Triplett admitted such kickbacks); GX 356 (Triplett was paid
$9,925.70 for reducing price on 16 "operators"(7) sold to H * E, and for a surplus
Pratt ball valve sold to a Pratt customer by H * E at Triplett's direction);
R124:318-19, 325-326; GX 407 (Triplett received $25,969 for the "discounts" he
gave on the sale of Pratt parts to ECI and for the sale of a surplus valve back to
Pratt); R124:458 (Triplett admitted receiving over $25,000 in kickbacks from
Cain). Triplett sometimes even sent bills to these co-conspirators itemizing the
money they owed him for these kickbacks; but he cautioned them to send the
payments to his home rather than his business. R124:298-99, 320-22; GX 354,
In finding Triplett guilty, the jury returned a special verdict form indicating
they unanimously agreed that the government had proved all of the allegations in
the indictment: that Triplett had conspired, through the use of both the U.S. mail
and interstate wire transmissions, to defraud Pratt, to obtain money from Pratt by
false and fraudulent representations, and to deprive Pratt of Triplett's honest
services. R90.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Triplett did not dispute any of the relevant facts at trial. He admitted that he
knowingly violated company standards of conduct by taking kickbacks on sales,
and by divulging confidential company information to outsiders. He also admitted
he had a conflict of interest by participating with Scruggs in the sale of valves to
Pratt, and failing to divulge the fact that he and Scruggs were partners in the sales. Nor did Triplett dispute the amount  over $100,000  that he received as a result
of these schemes. His only purported defense was the false factual claim that Pratt
did not suffer any "economic harm" because Pratt made a profit on each
refurbished surplus valve it sold. The jury rightly rejected this defense. The court
properly took the kickbacks received by Triplett and his co-conspirators into
account in calculating Triplett's offense level under USSG §2F1.1. And, because
Pratt lost almost $200,000 in profits that went into the pockets of Triplett and his
co-conspirators, the court properly ordered restitution. An abuse of trust enhancement was proper because Triplett admitted that he
had abused Pratt's trust, and abuse of trust is not otherwise included in the offense
level for fraud under USSG §2F1.1. The enhancement for role in the offense was
required because the conspiracy involved five or more participants, including the
two employees of Eurotech who, knowing of the conspiracy's objective to defraud
Pratt of money by deceiving it as to the source of the valves, acted to further it.
The district court did not clearly err in counting as relevant conduct for
purposes of sentencing similar kickback schemes that Triplett engaged in with
other suppliers of Pratt valves that took place immediately before and during the
time of the charged offense. The obstruction of justice enhancement was required
because Triplett admitted at trial that he had destroyed evidence of his secret
agreement with Jimmy Scruggs after learning that the FBI was investigating his
kickback activities, and because the district court's findings that Triplett attempted
to influence the testimony of potential witnesses about these dealings were not
There was no constructive amendment of the indictment because the
evidence at trial relating to Pratt's lost profits and Scruggs' costs was used to
prove the charges in the indictment that Triplett defrauded Pratt of money and his
Decisions on sentence enhancements are reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Poirier, 321 F.3d 1024, 1035-36 (11th Cir. 2003) (obstruction of justice
and aggravating role enhancements); United States v. Blanc, 146 F.3d 847, 851
(11th Cir. 1998) (relevant conduct).
The calculation of loss under United States Sentencing Commission,
Guidelines Manual, §2F1.1 (Nov. 1997) "is a factual determination that [is
reviewed] for clear error." United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216, 1224 (11th
Cir. 2003). An order of restitution is reviewed for abuse of discretion, "but the
legality of that order is reviewed de novo." Yeager, 331 F.3d at 1227 (citation
"In evaluating whether the indictment was constructively amended [this
Court] review[s] the district court's jury instructions and the prosecutor's
summation 'in context' to determine whether an expansion of the indictment
occurred either literally or in effect." United States v. Castro, 89 F.3d 1443, 1450,
1453 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Where the defendant did not object at
trial to the court's charge or the prosecutor's comments, the Court reviews the
record under a "plain error" standard. United States. v. Rutherford, 175 F.3d 899,
906 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Andrews, 850 F.2d 1557, 1559 (11th Cir.
ENHANCEMENT FOR ABUSE OF TRUST
Triplett claims that the court improperly applied a two-level enhancement
under USSG §3B1.3 because abuse of trust was included in the base offense level,
or as a specific offense characteristic of, the "honest services" fraud of which he
was convicted. Def. Br. 9-11. But the six-question special jury verdict confirms
that Triplett was convicted of conspiring to use the mails and interstate wires to
defraud his employer, and to obtain money from his employer by false and
fraudulent pretenses, in addition to depriving his employer of his honest services. Because Triplett does not claim that abuse of trust is included in the base offense
level for schemes to defraud and obtaining money by false and fraudulent
pretenses, the abuse of trust enhancement was properly applied for that fraud.
Moreover, the sentencing guidelines and cases on which Triplett relies also
plainly show that an abuse of trust enhancement was properly applied even if
Triplett had only been convicted of "honest services" fraud. USSG §3B1.3(8)
requires a two-level sentence enhancement when "the defendant abused a position
of public or private trust, or used a special skill, in a manner that significantly
facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense." The adjustment "may
not be employed if an abuse of trust or skill is included in the base offense level or
specific offense characteristic." In this case, the enhancement was appropriate
because (1) Triplett abused a position of trust "in a manner that significantly
facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense," and (2) abuse of trust is
not "included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic" for fraud.
A. Triplett held a position of trust with Henry Pratt and abused that trust "in
a manner that significantly facilitated the commission . . . of the offense." USSG
§3B1.3. A 30-year veteran employee, Triplett was considered by Pratt to be its
expert on nuclear valves, a highly regulated and unique product. He was generally
the first to learn of a customer's need for surplus valves and, because Pratt trusted
him, Triplett had the responsibility to secure the appropriate valves at the lowest
cost. He knew he was prohibited from taking kickbacks: indeed, because of his
special position of authority and trust, he was one of a limited number of Pratt
employees required to sign an affidavit saying he had not taken