Court Opinion

ID: 9838795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 00:00:24.81195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:47.139193
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30292        Document: 00516886749             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/07/2023

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

                                      No. 23-30292                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                          September 7, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Michael Ansezell Tolliver,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-271-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Michael Ansezell Tolliver appeals the 120-month sentence imposed
   for his conviction of money laundering. He contends that the district court
   committed two reversible guidelines errors, his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and his sentence constitutes cruel
   and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30292      Document: 00516886749           Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/07/2023

                                     No. 23-30292

          In his first guidelines challenge, Tolliver argues that the district court
   erred in determining the loss applicable under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). He
   concedes that the applicable loss in his case was the greater of the actual loss
   or intended loss. For challenges that have been preserved, the district court’s
   interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United
   States v. Dowl, 619 F.3d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 2010). We review the calculation
   of the loss amount and other factual findings for clear error. Id.
          The district court’s loss determination was supported by factual
   findings in the presentence report (PSR) about Tolliver’s fraudulent
   applications under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic
   Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL). Tolliver did not provide any evidence
   rebutting the PSR’s findings. Additionally, given the PSR’s details about the
   dates of the applications; the names of the businesses used by Tolliver in the
   applications; the amounts sought; the amounts funded; and the names of the
   lenders associated with the applications, the PSR’s information about the
   applications had sufficient indicia of reliability. Accordingly, the district
   court was permitted to rely on that information without further inquiry. See
   United States v. Murray, 648 F.3d 251, 255 (5th Cir. 2011). Tolliver’s
   intention to divert $7,607,096 from the government for unintended uses
   qualifies that amount as the intended loss for purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(1). See
   Dowl, 619 F.3d at 502.
          Tolliver also contends that the district court misunderstood the
   parties’ stipulation regarding the applicable loss. The stipulation was not
   binding on the district court, and the record reflects a deliberate decision by
   the district court to use the definition of loss under § 2B1.1(b)(1) as the
   appropriate way to calculate the applicable amount. Tolliver’s contention
   that a misunderstanding of the stipulation affected the loss calculation is
   unavailing.

                                          2
Case: 23-30292     Document: 00516886749           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/07/2023

                                    No. 23-30292

          With respect to the second guidelines issue, the parties agree that the
   district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A) by assessing a two-level
   enhancement when only a one-level enhancement was applicable. Because
   this error was not raised in the district court, we review it under the plain
   error standard. See Murray, 648 F.3d at 253. To establish an effect on his
   substantial rights, Tolliver “must show a reasonable probability that, but for
   the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
   Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          The district court’s comments at sentencing make clear that its
   sentencing decision was driven by the statutory maximum and that the
   district court would not have imposed any sentence that was “a day less than
   the [statutory] maximum sentence” of 120 months of imprisonment. Thus,
   Tolliver has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received
   a lesser sentence if the district court had considered the correct guidelines
   range of 110 to 120 months of imprisonment. See United States v. Sanchez-
   Hernandez, 931 F.3d 408, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Nino-
   Carreon, 910 F.3d 194, 197-98 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the district
   court’s misapplication of § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A) is not reversible plain error.
          For both substantive reasonableness and the Eighth Amendment,
   Tolliver relies on the same arguments: (1) his sentence is disproportionately
   greater than sentences for similarly situated convictions involving PPP and
   EIDL fraud; (2) his sentence is greater than necessary to deter him from
   future criminal conduct and to protect the public, given that the COVID-19
   economic relief programs are over, he is 57 years old, and he has a history of
   heart issues; and (3) a shorter prison term would allow him to return to the
   workforce more quickly and increase the likelihood of restitution payments.

                                         3
Case: 23-30292       Document: 00516886749          Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/07/2023

                                     No. 23-30292

            In evaluating substantive reasonableness, we consider whether the
   district court “abused [its] discretion in determining that the § 3553(a)
   factors supported the sentence imposed.” Holguin-Hernandez v. United
   States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). Tolliver points to four cases in arguing
   that his sentence is disproportionately high, but he fails to show whether
   those cases had comparable aggravating or mitigating facts. Thus, he has not
   shown that any sentencing disparity with those cases was unwarranted. See
   § 3553(a)(6); United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 544-45 (5th Cir.
   2007).
            Moreover, the district court was aware of his arguments for a lesser
   sentence but determined that the statutory maximum of 120 months of
   imprisonment was appropriate. In doing so, the district court specifically
   noted Tolliver’s extensive criminal history, a factor that the district court was
   permitted to consider. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir.
   2006). “The sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge
   their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case.” Gall v. United States,
   552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We give due deference to the district court’s
   sentencing decision and decline to reweigh the applicable sentencing factors.
   See id. Tolliver’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
            Lastly, we review Tolliver’s Eighth Amendment claim for plain error
   because he did not raise such a claim in the district court. See United States
   v. Ayelotan, 917 F.3d 394, 406 (5th Cir. 2019). He has not shown that his
   sentence is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his offense. See United
   States v. Neba, 901 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th Cir. 2018).
            AFFIRMED.

                                          4