Opinion ID: 709217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Criminal History Points under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2(c)(1)(B)

Text: 19 Defendant also contends that the District Court erred in computing her criminal history points. Section 4A1.2(c)(1)(B) of the guidelines provides that sentences for prior offenses be included in the calculation of criminal history if the prior offense was similar to an instant offense. She asserts that four convictions for worthless checks are not similar to the crime of bank fraud for the purposes of applying the criminal history guideline, and we agree. Although she concedes that this correction does not change her criminal history category, and therefore does not change her sentence, it may affect her security classification within the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. 20 Courts have held in a variety of contexts that passing bad checks or overdrafts on one's personal account does not constitute fraudulent behavior. In Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 284, 102 S.Ct. 3088, 3091, 73 L.Ed.2d 767 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a check is not a factual assertion and therefore cannot be characterized as true or false. Thus, writing a check for insufficient funds does not constitute knowingly making a false statement. Williams, 458 U.S. at 282, 290, 102 S.Ct. at 3090, 3094-95. This Circuit has held that mere insufficient funds convictions under Tennessee law are not crimes involving dishonesty or fraud. United States v. Barb, 20 F.3d 694 (6th Cir.1994) (prior misdemeanor convictions for insufficient funds did not involve dishonesty or fraud for the purpose of admissibility under F.R.E. 609(a)(2)). 21 As Defendant points out, there is a substantial difference between writing checks for basic family necessities using one's own name and one's own account, as was the case here, and engaging in a scheme of bank fraud using false names and fake accounts in different states. The Sentencing Guidelines themselves acknowledge this difference in the commentary to Sec. 4A1.2(c)(1)(B), which states specifically that the category of  '[i]nsufficient funds check,' ... does not include any conviction establishing that the defendant used a false name or non-existent account. U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2, comment (n. 13). If the Sentencing Commission had contemplated that insufficient funds violations were like bank fraud, it would not have made such a distinction in the commentary. Therefore, the four convictions for worthless checks were erroneously included in the Defendant's criminal history calculation under Sec. 4A1.2(c)(1)(B).