Opinion ID: 203944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guidelines Requirement

Text: We begin with whether the government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sicher occupied a position of trust. The Guideline states: If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Commentary illuminates the meaning of the Guidelines. The commentary states that a position of public or private trust is characterized by professional or managerial discretion. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 cmt. n. 1. Persons holding such positions ordinarily are subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature. Id. The Guidelines commentary further explains that the enhancement would apply to a bank executive's fraudulent loan scheme, but does not apply in the case of an embezzlement or theft by an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk because such positions lack the required discretion. [7] Id. The plain language of the Guideline thus covers a spectrum of positions. At one end, the enhancement applies to a supervisor to whom substantial discretion is delegated; at the other end, an ordinary bank teller with no discretion is excluded. In evaluating the first step of the § 3B1.3 enhancement analysis, the relevant inquiry ... is whether a person in fact occupied a position of trust, rather than whether the person's title or official job description contained a discretionary element. United States v. Chanthaseng, 274 F.3d 586, 589 (1st Cir.2001) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Allen, 201 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir.2000) (An employee need not have a fancy title or be a `big shot' in an organization to qualify for an enhancement for abuse of a position of trust.); United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 643, 646 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that § 3B1.3 enhancement has been applied to police officers, security guards, babysitters, custodians, and truck drivers). The fact that Sicher's title was only that of secretary and administrative assistant is beside the point. Under our precedent, the district court's implicit conclusion that Sicher held a position of trust characterized by managerial discretion cannot be reversed. The record shows that Sicher, through her roles in the medical practice and at CGF, in fact exercised a great deal of discretion and had little supervision. These roles must be considered together for purposes of the enhancement. What is conclusive for us is her role in CGF. Were the enhancement based on Sicher's secretarial role in Dr. Walton's medical practice alone, this might be considered a more difficult issue. Cf. United States v. Tann, 532 F.3d 868, 874-76 (D.C.Cir.2008) (no enhancement where office manager's responsibilities limited to payroll and entering checks into ledger). Whether Sicher's secretarial role alone in the medical practice is enough to support the enhancement is a question we do not need to reach. In light of the additional role Sicher performed at CGF, the evidence firmly supports the district court's conclusion that she occupied a position of trust. The record is clear that Sicher in fact exercised considerable authority and discretion as to CGF; this is necessarily so, as she was unsupervised in a number of tasks as to receipt and disbursement of funds. First, Sicher opened and reviewed CGF's monthly bank statements and then selectively gave information to Dr. Walton, who was only shown the bottom line of the account (i.e. only the first page, which only showed the total account balance). Indeed, she exercised autonomy over incoming donations, the payments of grants to researchers (as evidenced by the non-payment to one researcher), and maintenance of the accounting logs. She was essentially unsupervised by Dr. Walton as to these responsibilities and has never claimed otherwise. Second, as the public face of CGF, she was entrusted to host CGF fundraisers and to take steps to facilitate the fundraisers such as dealing with celebrities and distributing items for sale. She also exercised discretion as to what fundraisers would be held in CGF's name, not even disclosing them to Dr. Walton. Regardless of the defendant's title, she essentially took over as the de facto manager and director of CGF. Where a supervisor fails to review the financial transactions carried out by an employee, as here, effectively giving the employee significant discretion, we have held that the enhancement applies. Chanthaseng, 274 F.3d at 590 (Although it was against bank regulations for appellant to countersign rapid deposit tickets at will, the bank manager's laxity effectively made that a central element of [defendant's] position.). Other courts have applied the enhancement to employees who, despite their title, were in fact entrusted with substantial discretion. For example, in United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180, 195-96 (2d Cir.1999), the Second Circuit upheld an abuse of trust enhancement for a personal secretary who altered checks made payable to cash and tricked her employer into signing checks made payable to her personal accounts. There, the court explained that the proper characterization of the secretarial position for [§ 3B1.3] purpose[s] will depend on the responsibilities the employer delegates to the employee and the discretion the employer confers. Id. at 195; see also United States v. Tiojanco, 286 F.3d 1019, 1021-22 (7th Cir.2002) (enhancement applies to hotel clerk in accounts receivable department who was responsible for handling telephone calls from hotel guests who disputed charges made to their credit card account). We recognize that testimony by individuals that they trusted someone who betrayed their trust does not itself establish that the position was a position of trust. The testimony, however, is not irrelevant. With growing trust by the employer and/or victim, an employee may be in fact given increasing levels of responsibility and discretion over time which such that the position becomes one characterized by professional or managerial discretion without any change in title. That is true here. Our caselaw recognizes this as grounds to sustain a § 3B1.3 enhancement. In United States v. O'Connell , this court concluded that the closeness of the relationship between the defendant and the victim supported the district court's finding that the defendant occupied a position of trust. O'Connell applied the enhancement to a bookkeeper who had forged the business owner's name to the checks. 252 F.3d at 528-29. In upholding the enhancement, O'Connell stated that mere[] access to the [business's] checkbook and accounting software was insufficient to trigger the application of the enhancement. Id. Rather, two other aspects of O'Connell's employment ... enabled his thefts: O'Connell's authority to transfer funds from the line of credit to the checking account and his close, personal relationship with the [business owners]. Id. at 529. This is a very different point than saying no more than the defendant lacked supervision. The testimony at Sicher's sentencing hearing repeatedly emphasized the high level of trust Dr. Walton and others had in the defendant, which resulted in her having an even more important role in CGF. [8] Although Sicher is correct to argue that trust has a special meaning under the Guidelines, United States v. Reccko, 151 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir.1998), it is also evident from the testimony that the particular level of trust Dr. Walton and the patients and families had in Sicher result[ed] in less supervision of and more autonomy for her. O'Connell, 252 F.3d at 529. And whatever the reason Sicher was given such a significant role, she was in fact in a position of trust as defined in the Guideline. The cases upon which Sicher relies to argue that she does not occupy a position of trust, Reccko and Parrilla Roman, are easily distinguished. In Reccko, this court rejected the application of the enhancement to a police station receptionist/switchboard operator who possessed no discernable discretion. Reccko, 151 F.3d at 32. There, the defendant was closely supervised; her telephone lines were continuously monitored; and although she announced visitors, she did not have discretion either to screen them or to admit them to the non-public areas of the stationhouse. Id. In Parrilla Roman, 485 F.3d at 192, we rejected an enhancement for airport baggage handlers where there was no evidence of discretion or that defendants toiled under minimal supervision. Sicher did not have a menial position, id., on par with the closely supervised receptionist/switchboard operator or baggage handler. As to the second step, the record clearly shows that defendant used her position of trust to conceal her offenses. [9] There is no dispute that Sicher was able to carry out her offenses for at least five years by showing Dr. Walton only the first page of the monthly bank statements and deleting the remaining pages showing her illegal activity. The trusted, familial role that defendant held in Dr. Walton's practice and CGF facilitated the thefts. In addition, she used her vast array of responsibilities with CGF to perform and to conceal her thefts from the foundation. Finally, we reject Sicher's second claim of error that the district court failed to consider and to grant a downward variance on the basis of evidence of her mental health problems, including diagnoses of borderline personality disorder, major depression, and compulsive gambling disorder. The record demonstrates that the district court in fact did consider the defendant's mental health evidence, but simply did not find it persuasive. The district court stated, Frankly, while I understand that, I regard it as an explanation rather than a justification.... Not the kind of mental state to excuse this criminal behavior. Further, the district court did recommend that defendant receive mental health treatment in prison. The record thus refutes defendant's second claim of error.