Court Opinion

ID: 9964970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:01:05.814805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:50.975565
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2533
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

           Carrie April Martin, formerly known as Carrie April Winkler

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: April 8, 2024
                                Filed: May 1, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SMITH, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Carrie April Martin pleaded guilty to bank fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344(2), and aggravated identity theft, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). She
was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment on the fraud count and 24 months’
imprisonment on the identity theft count, to run consecutively. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(b) (consecutive sentence for aggravated identity theft). Martin appeals,
arguing that she did not use sophisticated means to commit bank fraud and that the
district court1 thus erred by applying the enhancement set forth in U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines § 2B1.1(b)10(C). We affirm.

       Martin’s father held the power of attorney for his elderly mother, L.W., and his
aunt, I.O., and was a signatory on their credit union accounts. After obtaining checks
drawn on those accounts, Martin wrote 194 checks to herself, signing her father’s
name on each. Martin also used her father’s personal identifiers and account
information to opt out of receiving paper statements and to enroll in electronic
statements, which were delivered to Martin’s email account.

       Martin deceived a senior branch office administrator at a national investment
firm into giving her access to I.O.’s investment account. Martin thereafter transferred
funds into I.O.’s credit union account, drawing down the investment account from
$180,000 in January 2013 to less than $7,500 by October 2017. Martin also sold
I.O.’s stock in a local energy company. In a series of transactions through an online
transfer agent, Martin transferred $115,000 into I.O.’s credit union account. Martin
depleted the transferred funds by writing checks to herself. L.W. died in December
2014. I.O. died in October 2017, mere weeks after learning that Martin had stolen her
life savings. Martin ultimately transferred into her personal bank account no less than
$5,910 from L.W.’s credit union account and no less than $411,000 from I.O.’s credit
union account.

      Martin argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that her offense
involved sophisticated means. Although the commentary defines “sophisticated
means” as “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

                                         -2-
the execution or concealment of an offense,” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B), we have
said that “[r]epetitive and coordinated conduct, though no one step is particularly
complicated, can be a sophisticated scheme.” United States v. Jenkins, 578 F.3d 745,
751 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908, 915 (8th Cir.
2005)).

        Martin wrote scores of checks to herself for more than three years, each time
signing her father’s name. She lied to gain access to I.O.’s investment account and
transfer assets to I.O.’s credit union account. She created and used an online account
to sell I.O.’s stock and transfer proceeds to the credit union account. She depleted the
funds in L.W.’s and I.O.’s accounts and concealed her scheme by enrolling I.O. in
electronic statements. Viewed as a whole, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Martin’s offense “was notably more intricate than that of the garden-
variety [offense].” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Hance, 501
F.3d 900, 909 (8th Cir. 2007)); see United States v. Lamb, 776 F. App’x 383, 384
(8th Cir. 2019) (no clear error in finding that scheme involved sophisticated means
when, over the course of four-and-a-half years, defendant stole “$184,466.01 from
her employers, primarily by writing checks to herself from company bank accounts
and then editing QuickBooks entries to make it look like the checks were for
legitimate business expenses”).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -3-