Court Opinion

ID: 9378615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 01:00:26.254027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.188990
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20629        Document: 00516673157             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

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

                                      No. 21-20629                          FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                  March 10, 2023
                                    ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Lee E. Price, III,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CR-522-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Lee Earnest Price, III, submitted multiple fraudulent applications for
   loans under the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) implemented as part of the
   Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. He ultimately received
   $1,689,952 in fraudulent PPP loans from two federally insured banks,
   Harvest Small Business Finance and Radius Bank, which funds he used to

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-20629        Document: 00516673157         Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                     No. 21-20629

   purchase luxury items for his personal use. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud
   and engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property and was
   sentenced to 110 months of imprisonment. He now appeals.
          Price complains that the district court erred in assessing a two-level
   sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1,
   urging that there is no evidence that his conduct, taken in context, was
   anything other than benign. This court reviews the district court’s finding
   that Price obstructed justice for clear error. See United States v. Greer,
   158 F.3d 228, 233 (5th Cir. 1998). It will affirm if the finding is “plausible in
   light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380
   (5th Cir. 2011).
          The record supports the district court’s finding of obstruction. The
   district court was entitled to infer from the evidence that Price’s actions and
   statements to Clarence Comeaux, his cousin and a potential witness, were
   a conscious and deliberate attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to
   impede the Government’s investigation. See United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d
   677, 688 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228, 241 (5th
   Cir. 1998). Although Price offers a benign explanation for approaching
   Comeaux, he offers no reasons for instructing Comeaux to lie to law
   enforcement, cancel the scheduled interview with them, and meet with him
   instead. Moreover, the district court was entitled to reject as incredible
   Price’s explanation for his actions, and this court will not revisit that
   credibility determination. See United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367, 378 (5th
   Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Hebert, 813 F.3d 551, 560 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Next, Price argues that the district court erred in assessing a two-level
   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) for deriving more than
   $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions. For the
   first time on appeal, he contends that the Guideline requires that the financial

                                          2
Case: 21-20629      Document: 00516673157            Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                      No. 21-20629

   institutions be both the source of the fraudulent loans and the victim of the
   fraud, and he urges that the victimization requirement has not been met in
   his case. Price asserts that, under the unique structure of the PPP, because
   Radius Bank’s loan was forgiven by the Small Business Administration
   (SBA), the SBA, not Radius Bank, was the victim of his fraud, as evidenced
   by the fact that the SBA was listed as a victim in the district court’s
   restitution order. However, according to Price, the SBA is not a “financial
   institution” within the meaning of the Guideline, rendering the enhancement
   error in his case.
          The Government counters that the district court properly applied the
   § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A) enhancement here as the Guideline requires only that the
   defendant receive more than $1,000,000 in proceeds from one or more
   financial institutions and that Harvest Finance and Radius Bank are federally
   insured banks that qualify as such institutions. It asserts that the fact that
   Radius Bank was ultimately reimbursed by the SBA is irrelevant for purposes
   of the enhancement given that the Guideline focuses on the gross amount
   that Price derived from the banks, not the net losses sustained by the banks.
   The Government further asserts that, even if the SBA is the relevant entity
   for purposes of the enhancement, the SBA is a qualifying “financial
   institution” as described in the Guideline commentary.
          Because Price now challenges the enhancement on a ground different
   than he asserted below, review is limited to plain error. See United States
   v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003). To show plain error,
   he must establish a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his
   substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he
   makes the requisite showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error
   but only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” Id.

                                           3
Case: 21-20629      Document: 00516673157          Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                    No. 21-20629

          The parties do not cite, and this court has not located, any Fifth
   Circuit authority on point. That being so, Price fails to demonstrate that the
   district court committed a clear or obvious error under existing law in
   assessing the two-level “gross receipts” enhancement. See United States
   v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Ceron,
   775 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671
   (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2005); see
   also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4