Opinion ID: 4241826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ornella Hammerschmidt

Text: Ornella argues that the district court erred when it applied Guidelines § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B) and increased her offense level by 2 for being “in the business of preparing or assisting in the preparation of tax returns.” Ornella claims that she “only occasionally or sporadically” assisted her husband in the preparation of tax returns and that the government presented no evidence that she profited from her assistance. Appellant Ornella’s Br. 20. The record, however, belies these claims. As part of the factual basis for her plea agreement, Ornella admitted that she and Mark operated a tax preparation business that they used to prepare and file more than 1,000 federal income tax returns. Ornella served as the vice president of the business, and it is undisputed that the business collected fees for its services. Moreover, Ornella continued to assist in the preparation of tax returns after she was indicted in this case. Ornella’s conduct falls squarely within the application note that explains that § 2T1.4(b)(1)(B) “applies to persons who regularly prepare or assist in the preparation of tax returns for profit.” U.S.S.G. § 2T1.4 cmt. n.2. Ornella next argues that the district court erred in relying on “victim impact” as a reason for varying above the Guidelines sentencing range. According to Ornella, “[t]he district court did not elaborate on why victim impact was a basis for the upward variance, but [Ornella] contends the court relied on erroneous facts to support the variance.” Appellant Ornella’s Br. 26. On plain error review, she essentially asks us to assume that the district court relied upon erroneous facts to support the variance. See United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 2008) (“If a defendant fails to timely object to a procedural sentencing error, the error is forfeited and may only be reviewed for plain error.”). This we will not do. The district court did not err in finding that Ornella’s conduct had a serious impact on her victims. Ornella helped prepare and file fraudulent federal income tax -9- returns on behalf of tax and immigration clients. She made false statements on those returns to obtain fraudulent refunds. Ornella also falsely claimed to be an attorney who specialized in immigration, and she charged clients for immigration services that she did not provide. The conspiracies caused the IRS to suffer monetary loss. During the sentencing hearing, three victims spoke of the havoc wreaked in their lives because of the fraudulent tax returns that Mark and Ornella had filed for them and because of the errors that Mark and Ornella had made in their immigration cases. The government read a statement by a fourth victim. The record thus supports the district court’s decision to rely on “victim impact” as a reason to vary above Ornella’s Guidelines sentencing range. We likewise find no plain error in the district court’s reliance on Ornella’s criminal history as a reason to vary above the Guidelines sentencing range. Ornella contends that the Guidelines adequately addressed her criminal history, but “[w]e have held that a district court may impose an upward variance based on facts already included in the advisory sentencing guidelines where the advisory guidelines do not fully account for those facts.” United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338, 352 (8th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911, 914 (8th Cir. 2007)). Ornella began defrauding the government as early as 2002. Although the schemes varied, she continued to engage in fraudulent conduct until she was incarcerated. The district court adequately explained its reasons for the variance: The court has varied upward from the guidelines range because of defendant’s continued course of fraudulent conduct dating back to 2002. And as set forth in the presentence report, this is defendant’s second federal conviction for fraud-related conduct and the fourth-charged fraud offense. Further, although not charged with a crime for such conduct, the PSR establishes that between 2010 and 2014 defendant posed as an immigration attorney and charged immigration clients for services not provided. And, finally, the defendant committed the instant offense while on probation for another federal fraud conviction. -10- Sent. Tr. 30-31. Ornella’s reliance on Guidelines § 4A1.3, Departures Based on Inadequacy of Criminal History Category, is misplaced. The district court did not depart on the basis of § 4A1.3, but rather varied from the Guidelines sentencing range after considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 (setting forth the procedure to determine a defendant’s sentence); see also Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714 (2008) (“‘Departure’ is a term of art under the Guidelines and refers only to non-Guidelines sentences imposed under the framework set out in the Guidelines.”). Finally, we do not address Ornella’s argument that the district court erred by denying a mitigating role adjustment under Guidelines § 3B1.2. Ornella conceded the argument in her reply brief. See Appellant Ornella’s Reply Br. 5. Nor do we address the additional arguments that Ornella raised for the first time in her reply brief and in a pro se document that she filed with the court on October 30, 2017. See United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951, 958 n.4 (8th Cir. 2015) (“[A]s a general rule we do not entertain arguments that are first raised in a reply brief.”); United States v. Donnell, 596 F.3d 913, 925-26 (8th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e generally do not accept pro se motions or briefs when an appellant is represented by counsel.”) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682, 690 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009)).