Court Opinion

ID: 9490442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:43:40.775906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:06.293606
License: Public Domain

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In United States v. West we rejected the very argument that the Government now ad-vanees and the court now accepts — that the two-level increase in a defendant’s base offense level under § 3B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines should apply “merely because [the defendant] is entrusted with valuable things and has little or no supervision while performing his or her duties.” 56 F.3d 216, 221 (1995). In West we explained that the adoption of such a theory “would stretch the abuse-of-trust enhancement to cover endless numbers of jobs involving absolutely no professional or managerial discretion, in clear contravention of the plain language of the commentary to section 3B1.3.” Id. Indeed, the commentary to § 3B1.3 makes it clear that an upward adjustment for abuse of trust is inapplicable to any position that is not “characterized by professional or managerial discretion” — such as the positions of “an ordinary bank teller or hotel clerk” — because an employee in such a position is not “ordinarily ... subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily nondiseretionary in nature.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, comment, (n.l). The commentary focuses upon positions that do involve substantial professional or managerial discretion; for example, the adjustment “would apply in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney serving as a guardian, a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme, or the criminal sexual abuse of a patient by a physician under the guise of an examination.” Id. ■
By the court’s present reasoning, however, any employee who is in fact trusted by his or her employer may receive an abuse-of-trust upward adjustment regardless whether the *1454type of position occupied by the defendant would “ordinarily” be one of trust. Like a bank teller or hotel clerk, Becraft did not hold a position “that is ordinarily characterized by professional or managerial discretion.” On the contrary only her supervisor, Tom Bayard, had authority to approve purchase orders and reimbursement requests and to sign checks. Yet, as the Court recounts, Bayard
permitted Becraft to determine which purchases should be made and accepted her decision without question. It was largely because of the complete trust he reposed in her, and the carte blanche he granted her, that Becraft was able to execute and conceal her various frauds over so long a time.
Ct. Op. 5. This is correct; the record indicates that Becraft’s frauds were easily detectable. Bayard received monthly reports from the office of IIE’s Comptroller that would have enabled him to detect any discrepancies between sales and receivables. Bayard was negligent, however, in supervising Becraft, perhaps because he and Becraft enjoyed a close personal relationship. At Becraft’s sentencing counsel for HE reported that after conducting an internal investigation “we were left with the impression” that Bayard felt “let down by someone he had so trusted.” Indeed, Bayard committed suicide a few days after Becraft’s frauds were discovered.
Thus, the court errs in characterizing Be-eraft’s position as “a trusted supervisory position within the Institute entailing substantial spending and reporting authority.” Ct Op. 6. To the contrary: Becraft supervised no one; it was only due to her own supervisor’s complete failure to supervise her that she was able to take advantage of a position that would ordinarily have entailed little or no discretionary authority. His dereliction of duty does not somehow transform her position into one that is not “ordinarily” subject to significant supervision. See United States v. Pardo, 25 F.3d 1187, 1192 (3d Cir.1994) (enhancement not applicable to defendant able to commit bank fraud only because bank manager did not conduct routine background check on defendant); United States v. Helton, 953 F.2d 867, 869-70 (4th Cir.1992) (enhancement not applicable to cashier in charge of reimbursing employees for travel or purchase orders who was able to commit fraud only because of lax supervision); cf. United States v. Ragland, 72 F.3d 500, 503 (6th Cir.1996) (enhancement not applicable to bank customer service representative who “was not authorized to exercise any meaningful discretion”).
We have previously cautioned that expanding the range of positions “characterized by professional or managerial discretion” may render the term “so boundless as to be meaningless.” United States v. Smaw, 22 F.3d 330, 332 (1994) (reversing application of abuse-of-trust enhancement to time-and-attendance clerk). I fear that today’s decision will have just that effect; henceforth, the operative question will no longer be whether the defendant occupied a position “characterized by professional or managerial discretion (i.e., ... [one] that is ordinarily given considerable deference),” but instead whether the defendant, regardless of the nature of his or her position, was closely supervised. Because that is not what the Sentencing Guidelines require, I respectfully dissent.