Court Opinion

ID: 9396470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 18:00:49.908419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.242432
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40675        Document: 00516758533             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-40675                                   May 22, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   James Clark Nix,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CR-355-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         A jury convicted James Clark Nix of one count of conspiracy to
   commit wire fraud, one count of wire fraud, and two counts of money
   laundering. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, 1349, 1957. The district court
   sentenced him to consecutive terms of 168 months, 168 months, 120 months,
   and 120 months, respectively, resulting in his aggregate sentence of 576-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40675      Document: 00516758533           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                     No. 22-40675

   months’ imprisonment. It also ordered, inter alia, approximately $6.6
   million in restitution.
          Nix challenges the court’s, over his objections, in reaching the
   Guidelines sentencing range, applying: a two-level enhancement under
   Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for offense conduct involving “sophisticated
   means”; and a two-level enhancement under Guideline § 3B1.3 for
   “abus[ing] a position of public or private trust, or us[ing] a special skill, in a
   manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the
   offense”.
          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
   the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
   calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
   38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
   objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
   under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-
   Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
   preserved in district court, as in this instance, its application of the
   Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g.,
   United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Nix contends Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) should not have been
   applied because his scheme was straightforward and uncomplicated, and he
   did not attempt to conceal his fraudulent conduct. In that regard, Nix for
   years prepared and filed tax returns for individuals and businesses and
   convinced approximately 30 of his clients to transfer funds from their
   retirement and savings accounts to him for investing. Instead of investing
   those funds, however, Nix converted them for his personal use. He, at the
   very least, generated falsified documents showing that his clients’ funds were
   stable and had grown when, in reality, they were being used to purchase lavish

                                           2
Case: 22-40675      Document: 00516758533          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                    No. 22-40675

   gifts for himself. “[V]iewing the scheme in its entirety, it was not clearly
   erroneous for the district court to conclude that [Nix’s] overall conduct
   warranted the sophisticated means enhancement”. United States v. Miller,
   906 F.3d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Next, and as provided supra, the Guideline § 3B1.3 enhancement
   applies if “defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used a
   special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or
   concealment of the offense”.         U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.    Nix contends this
   enhancement should not have applied, asserting: he did not abuse a position
   of public or private trust, or use a special skill, because he is merely “a tax
   preparer, with a bachelor’s degree”, lacking “substantial education, training,
   or licensing”; and, even if he did, the record does not show he “used his
   accounting position or skill in any way that increased his chance of
   succeeding on his scheme”.
          Nix, as his clients’ trusted and long-standing tax preparer, was
   entrusted with their valuable financial information, had complete control
   over their investment funds after they were transferred to him, and used his
   knowledge of taxes and retirement funds to persuade his clients to invest with
   him and to create the appearance of legitimacy. His victims relied on his
   expertise and advice to their collective detriment of over $6 million. The
   court did not commit clear error. See United States v. Rorex, 16 F.3d 1214,
   1994 WL 57266, at *1–2 (5th Cir. 1994) (unpublished, but precedent pursuant
   to 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3) (affirming application of § 3B1.3 enhancement where
   defendant’s background suggested he “had greater knowledge of
   bookkeeping and tax preparation than did the general public” and “relied
   upon his superior knowledge . . . to ensure the success of his scheme”).
          Nix additionally claims his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.
   As he concedes, he did not raise this issue in district court. The failure to

                                          3
Case: 22-40675      Document: 00516758533           Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                     No. 22-40675

   preserve the issue results in our review being only for plain error. E.g., United
   States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard,
   Nix must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one
   subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, our court
   has the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should
   do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation
   of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
          Nix fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error in maintaining
   his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his offenses. See
   United States v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d 394, 406–07 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming on
   plain-error review what defendant maintained was “effective life sentence[]”
   for financial crime); United States v. Mills, 843 F.3d 210, 217 (5th Cir. 2016)
   (“[T]he Guidelines are a convincing objective indicator of proportionality”.
   (citation omitted)).
          Finally, we note sua sponte that the court at sentencing ordered Nix
   make $6,628,394.66 in restitution, in accordance with the presentence
   investigation report. The court’s written judgment, however, orders
   restitution in the amount of $6,631,894.66. We remand for the court to
   amend the written judgment to conform to its oral restitution order. See
   United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001) (“In this Circuit,
   it is well settled law that where there is any variation between the oral and
   written pronouncement of sentence, the oral sentence prevails.” (citation
   omitted)); see also United States v. Garcia, 604 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2010)
   (“Generally, we remand and direct the court to amend the written judgment
   to conform to the oral pronouncement.”).
          AFFIRMED and REMANDED to conform the written judgment
   to the oral pronouncement of restitution at sentencing.

                                           4