Opinion ID: 78628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sentencing Factors

Text: As noted above, ultimately, Ms. Ratliff was not charged with embezzlement from Jim Wynn, Inc., but was charged only with one count of bank fraud based on the phony account she opened at The Bank, N.A. See id. at 17, 25. She stated at her change-of-plea hearing that, in August 2004, she “opened a bank account under Wynn’s Electronics that had [her] name and [her] social security number at McAlester, Oklahoma, The Bank N.A.” Id. at 25. She admitted that her purpose in opening the bank account was to defraud her employer of money by depositing -9- his checks in that checking account. See id. She also admitted that she intended to execute a scheme that defrauded the bank, and intended to obtain money by false or fraudulent pretenses. See id. at 26. She also agreed that the government’s evidence would show that she represented to the bank that the interest in a particular business that the Wynns[] owned was being sold to [her], at which point in time there was a document prepared at which she forged the signature of Mrs. Wynn in order to establish that relationship, which in turn not only defrauds the Wynns, but it defrauds the bank because it’s a . . . misrepresentation to the bank. Id. at 26-27. She admitted that she executed that document with the intent to defraud. See id. at 27. At the end of the second sentencing hearing, the district court pronounced Ms. Ratliff’s sentence. Overruling Ms. Ratliff’s objection, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence “that there was a common scheme or plan regarding the funds obtained from the checks fraudulently presented and/or converted at Wilburton State Bank and Latimer State Bank and . . . the funds associated with those checks [were] appropriately considered as relevant conduct.” Id. at 180. Counsel for Ms. Ratliff argued that when she cashed checks at Wilburton State Bank and Latimer State Bank—which amounted to nearly $300,000—she gave the cash to Mr. Wynn. See id. at 173-74. The court rejected her argument, and added fourteen points to the base offense level for the amount of loss. Id. at 180. -10- Further, overruling Ms. Ratliff’s objection, the court also added two points for abuse of a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, finding that Ms. Ratliff “was a trusted employee, given very little oversight.” Id. at 181. The court noted that Mr. Wynn “described her position as office manager and added that while he and his wife were not present at the business, Ms. Ratliff had control of the same.” Id. at 181-82. The court also noted that another employee, Rachel Sennet, stated at a deposition prepared for another case that Ms. Ratliff acted as supervisor for her and other employees when the Wynns were not present. Id. at 182. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Ratliff’s “position facilitated her ability to carry out and conceal this scheme.” Id. Again, overruling Ms. Ratliff’s objection, the court also added two points for the use of sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2b1.1(b)(9). Id. at 182-83. The court found that she “went to extraordinary lengths to carry out this offense[,] . . . creating a false bill of sale and establishing – and establishment of a bank account and under false pretenses.” Id. at 183. The court also mentioned the government’s “documentation of various exhibits[,]” although the court did not describe them. See id. The court found that the total offense level was 25 and the criminal category was I, resulting in an advisory sentencing range of 57 to 71 months. Id. at 188. The court adopted the presentence report as the factual basis for the sentence, except where corrected by the court’s findings. Id. As noted above, the -11- court sentenced Ms. Ratliff to sixty months’ imprisonment, thirty-six months of supervised release, a special assessment of $100.00, and restitution of $484,023.62. Id. at 188-90. Ms. Ratliff appeals.