Court Opinion

ID: 9394458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 15:02:54.960916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.325602
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2456
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                            John Christopher Abbott

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: January 13, 2023
                             Filed: May 15, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      The district court 1 sentenced John Abbott to 60 months in prison after he
pleaded guilty to mail fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1341, for stealing from The Hershey

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
Company. Although he challenges the application of a sophisticated-means
enhancement and the overall length of the sentence, we affirm.

      Abbott worked for a shipping company as a logistics supervisor, which
required him to match orders with available trucks. He used the position to fool
Hershey’s, a regular customer, into paying for fictitious deliveries. The proceeds
went directly into Abbott’s pocket.

       After he pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, the district court found that
the scheme was sophisticated enough to impose a two-level enhancement. See
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). We review this finding for clear error. See United
States v. Huston, 744 F.3d 589, 592 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2014).

       Abbott’s multi-step scheme was “notably more intricate than . . . the garden-
variety offense.” United States v. Garbacz, 33 F.4th 459, 474 (8th Cir. 2022)
(citation omitted). The first step involved creating a corporation resembling an
actual trucking company to make the transactions appear legitimate. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B) (stating that the use of corporate shells “ordinarily indicates
sophisticated means”). Next, he opened bank accounts for the counterfeit
corporation and registered a fake postal box in the real trucking company’s name.
See United States v. Atkins, 881 F.3d 621, 624, 628 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that
the defendant’s use of “bank accounts not in his name to receive [] payments” for
“non-existent” items supported the enhancement). Using these steps, Abbott was
able to conceal nearly 700 fraudulent transactions totaling more than $2 million. See
United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908, 915 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that “repetitive
and coordinated conduct” counts as “sophisticated”). It was no ordinary fraud.

       There is nothing special, on the other hand, about Abbott’s sentence. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
for an abuse of discretion). To be sure, it was at the high end of the recommended
range. But the district court explained why. One reason was the sheer scope of the
fraud, which lasted for years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Another was the nature of
                                          -2-
the cover up, which involved “a false trail of documents.” See id. We cannot say it
abused its discretion, even if Abbott would have liked the court to place greater
weight on other considerations. See United States v. Becerra, 958 F.3d 725, 731
(8th Cir. 2020); see also Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (explaining that we may presume
a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable).

      We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________

                                        -3-