Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deborah Lee SYPNIEWISKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 203 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 05-11262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deborah Lee SYPNIEWISKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deborah Lee SYPNIEWISKI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-11262
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Susan B. Cowger, Tamara Lynn Reno, US Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Lee Sypniewiski was convicted by a jury of counterfeiting obligations of the United States and possessing counterfeit obligations. Sypniewiski argues that the district court erred in enhancing her sentence based on her manufacture of counterfeit federal reserve notes pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3) (2004). Sypniewiski argues that the enhancement was inapplicable under application note 4, which states that the enhancement does not apply where the items manufactured "are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny." § 2B5.1, comment, (n.4).
Based on the personal inspection of the notes by the district court judge, the evidence regarding the number of times the bills were successfully and unsuccessfully passed, and the testimony of various witnesses including a Secret Service agent, the district court found that the counterfeit notes were not so obviously counterfeit that they were unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. The district court's finding was plausible in light of the record as a whole and thus was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Wyjack, 141 F.3d 181, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bollman, 141 F.3d 184, 187 (5th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.