Court Opinion

ID: 9380421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 00:00:21.059539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.907202
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30144   Document: 00516680727   Page: 1   Date Filed: 03/17/2023

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

                            No. 22-30144
                                                                  FILED
                                                            March 17, 2023
                          Summary Calendar
                          ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                  Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Lynn D. Cawthorne,

                                               Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with

                          _____________

                            No. 22-30152
                          _____________

   United States of America,

                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Belena C. Turner,

                                          Defendant—Appellant.
                 ______________________________
Case: 22-30144          Document: 00516680727              Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                          No. 22-30144
                                        c/w No. 22-30152

                      Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                       USDC Nos. 5:18-CR-107-1, 5:18-CR-107-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
           Lynn D. Cawthorne and Belena C. Turner pleaded guilty to one count
   of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 1                   The charges against
   Cawthorne and Turner stemmed from their having used their organization,
   United Citizens and Neighborhoods, Inc. (UCAN), to defraud, from 2011 to
   2014, the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of
   Agriculture (USDA), specifically the Summer Feeding Service Program
   (SFSP), which in Louisiana was administered by the Louisiana Department
   of Education (LDOE).
           For sentencing purposes, the district court determined that the
   amount of intended loss resulting from the wire fraud offense was
   $987,919.72; this resulted in a 14-level enhancement pursuant to
   U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) for both Cawthorne and Turner. The court
   sentenced each defendant within the applicable guidelines range to 46
   months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. The
   court also ordered Cawthorne and Turner to pay, jointly and severally,
   restitution in the amount of $837,690.01 to the USDA.

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
             In a separate criminal case, which was joined with the instant action in the district
   court, Cawthorne pleaded guilty to aiding and assisting in making and subscribing a false
   return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). He was sentenced to 36 months of
   imprisonment, to run concurrently with his wire fraud sentence, and ordered to pay
   $58,183.95 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. Cawthorne does not challenge
   the tax conviction and sentence in the instant appeal.

                                                 2
Case: 22-30144      Document: 00516680727         Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                    No. 22-30144
                                  c/w No. 22-30152

          On appeal, Cawthorne and Turner first argue that the district court
   erred in its loss determination because the Government’s calculations were
   unreliable, and they urge that the court should have instead used
   $132,257.25, which was the loss amount calculated by the LDOE in its
   pending civil action against Cawthorne and Turner. We “review the district
   court’s loss calculations for clear error,” but “the district court’s method of
   determining the amount of loss, as well as its interpretations of the meaning
   of a sentencing guideline, [are reviewed] de novo.” United States v. Harris,
   821 F.3d 589, 601 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, citation, and
   emphasis omitted). “There is no clear error if the district court’s finding is
   plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Cisneros-
   Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Given the “unique position” the district court occupies to
   assess the loss amount, its loss calculation is entitled to appropriate
   deference. United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 554, 560 (5th Cir. 2012); see also
   § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)).
          The district court was entitled to rely on the presentence report
   (PSR)’s findings of fact as long as that information bore some indicia of
   reliability. United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539, 557 (5th Cir. 2014). When
   challenging the PSR, the defendant has the burden of presenting rebuttal
   evidence to show that the information in the PSR is inaccurate or materially
   untrue. Id. Here, testimony and other evidence established that FBI agents
   looked at several types of documents, interviewed employees of the feeding
   centers, and performed an accounting into UCAN’s expenses via its bank
   statements to determine the $987,919.72 loss amount. As the district court
   noted, and as the sentencing exhibits show, the LDOE’s investigation was
   more limited than the FBI’s and covered only 2012 and 2014. Additionally,
   the LDOE’s investigation covered primarily only one feeding site—and only
   two sites total—to determine a loss amount of $132,257.25. Cawthorne and

                                          3
Case: 22-30144      Document: 00516680727         Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                    No. 22-30144
                                  c/w No. 22-30152

   Turner did not otherwise offer any evidence demonstrating that the
   Government’s calculations were inaccurate or unreliable, nor did they offer
   any evidence reflecting additional legitimate expenses. Therefore, they have
   failed to show that the district court clearly erred in its loss calculation and
   its assessment of the 14-level enhancement. See Harris, 821 F.3d at 601;
   Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764.
          Cawthorne and Turner next assert that district court impermissibly
   engaged in double counting when it applied both a misrepresentation
   enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and an abuse of trust
   enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 to the same conduct. The
   application of two different enhancements to the same course of conduct
   does not constitute impermissible double counting if each enhancement
   targets a different aspect of the defendant’s behavior. See United States v.
   Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 1995); see also § 2B1.1, comment.
   (n.8(E)(i)) (providing that § 3B1.3 cannot be applied “[i]f the conduct that
   forms the basis for an enhancement under [§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)] is the only
   conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under § 3B1.3”).
          Here, the district court expressly determined that § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)
   applied to Cawthorne and Turner’s misrepresentations to the LDOE that
   they were operating a charitable food program that the SFSP was funding.
   On the other hand, the district court found that § 3B1.3 applied to Cawthorne
   and Turner’s abuses of their positions at UCAN to divert funding received
   by UCAN into their personal accounts and to secure feeding sites throughout
   the community. Accordingly, the court did not erroneously double count, as
   each enhancement targeted different aspects of the defendants’ behavior.
   See Scurlock, 52 F.3d at 540-41; § 2B1.1, comment. (n.8(E)(i)). Even if the
   district court erred in this regard, the Government has convincingly shown
   that any error was harmless, as the district court stated that it would have
   imposed the same 46-month sentences on both Cawthorne and Turner if it

                                          4
Case: 22-30144      Document: 00516680727          Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                      No. 22-30144
                                    c/w No. 22-30152

   had applied only one of the enhancements. See United States v. Redmond, 965
   F.3d 416, 420 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Cawthorne also claims that restitution should be paid to the LDOE,
   not the USDA. However, any error concerning to whom the restitution is to
   be paid will not harm Cawthorne: whether the recipient is the USDA or the
   LDOE, he remains liable for paying the same amount of $837,690.01 in
   restitution. Therefore, the Government is correct that Cawthorne lacks
   constitutional standing to challenge the recipient of the award. See Steel Co.
   v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998).
          Lastly, Turner asserts that her within-guidelines sentence is
   substantively unreasonable, as the district court failed to give significant
   weight to her history as a public servant and her good deeds to her
   community. Because she preserved this challenge, our review is for an abuse
   of discretion. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67
   (2020); United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Turner has not shown that the district court considered an improper
   factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of
   judgment in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
   Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). At sentencing, the district court
   indicated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors in determining Turner’s
   sentence, noting Turner’s criminal history, personal characteristics, and
   involvement in the wire fraud offense, as well as Turner’s argument for a
   sentence below the guidelines range.            The district court expressly
   acknowledged Turner’s “good deeds in the community,” but found that her
   good deeds were “overshadowed by the harm that she [had] done.” Turner
   is essentially asking us to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, which we may not do.
   See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, Turner has
   failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to her within-

                                           5
Case: 22-30144     Document: 00516680727        Page: 6    Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                   No. 22-30144
                                 c/w No. 22-30152

   guidelines sentence and has not shown that the district court abused its
   discretion. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at 189; Hernandez, 876 F.3d at 166-67.
         The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

                                        6