Court Opinion

ID: 9554511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 14:07:54.391366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:47.642245
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11069    Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 08/09/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11069
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       FRED J. PICKETT, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cr-80230-RLR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11069      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11069

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and BRANCH, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Fred Pickett, Jr., appeals his sentence of 97 months of impris-
       onment for 22 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of
       false tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). Pickett challenges the en-
       hancement of his sentence by four levels for being an organizer or
       leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants
       or was otherwise extensive. United States Sentencing Guidelines
       Manual § 3B1.1(a) (Nov. 2021). We affirm.
              Pickett argues that the district court erred by applying the
       aggravating-role enhancement because there were no other “par-
       ticipants” in his crimes. He raises this argument for the first time
       on appeal, so our review is for plain error. See United States v.
       Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014). Under that stand-
       ard, Pickett must prove an error that is plain and that affects his
       substantial rights. See id.
               The district court did not err by finding that Pickett’s fraud-
       ulent tax scheme involved at least one other “participant.” See
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1. Pickett owned a tax preparation business
       with multiple locations. He employed at least ten individuals, in-
       cluding Brandhi Shaw, the mother of one of his children. Shaw
       worked as a tax preparer for Pickett from about 2012 through 2017.
       Jalisa Steele, Pickett’s step-daughter, testified that Pickett prepared
       about half of the tax returns, and Shaw and another tax preparer,
USCA11 Case: 22-11069     Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 08/09/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-11069              Opinion of the Court                        3

       Leslie Bouie, prepared the other half. Pickett directed his employ-
       ees, including Shaw, to use only his preparer-identification num-
       ber, so it was impossible to identify which tax returns he prepared.
       Over half of the returns filed with Pickett’s identification number
       in 2015 and 2016 listed Schedule C business losses, and between 99
       and 100 percent sought tax refunds. Agent Betsy Charlton for the
       Internal Revenue Service testified that, based on her investigation
       of Pickett, the Service expanded its investigation to include Shaw.
       Agent Charlton testified at sentencing that she interviewed several
       of Pickett’s customers who had false tax returns. Some customers
       reported that Pickett’s employees prepared their tax returns, and at
       least one customer identified Shaw as the preparer.
               After Agent Charlton began her investigation and Pickett
       was alerted to false items on several Schedule C forms, Pickett did
       not fire Shaw or Bouie. Shaw instead began working at a new tax
       preparation business, Premier Financial. Pickett introduced, over
       the government’s objection, a copy of the government’s civil com-
       plaint to enjoin Shaw from preparing false tax returns based on her
       allegedly fraudulent activity at Premier. Those allegations against
       Shaw were nearly identical to the charges against Pickett, which
       included reporting false Schedule C business losses and falsely
       claiming earned income, fuel, and education tax credits. The record
       supports the finding by the district court that Shaw had been a
       knowing participant in Pickett’s criminal scheme. See United States
       v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1301 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[E]mployees are
       participants for purposes of the supervisory-role enhancement
       when they knowingly further the fraudulent scheme.”). Because
USCA11 Case: 22-11069      Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 08/09/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11069

       there was at least one “participant,” and Pickett does not dispute
       that he was an “organizer or leader” or that his criminal activity
       was “otherwise extensive,” the district court did not plainly err by
       applying this enhancement. See id. (“[F]or a criminal activity to
       qualify as ‘otherwise extensive,’ there must [] be at least one other
       participant.”); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2.
               Pickett argues that the government should be estopped
       from arguing on appeal that Shaw was criminally responsible for
       Pickett’s scheme because it argued at sentencing that Shaw’s mis-
       conduct had not been “proven” yet. We disagree. The govern-
       ment’s position on appeal is not inconsistent with its position in the
       district court. See United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1152 (11th
       Cir. 2006) (en banc). Pickett argued at sentencing that, despite his
       and Shaw’s conduct being “equally culpable” and “identical,” Shaw
       had not been criminally charged. The government responded to
       this argument by explaining that any wrongdoing on Shaw’s part
       was attributable to “the training she was able to receive” from
       Pickett. And the government made clear at trial that “Shaw’s day
       in court may yet well come,” so it did not absolve her of any crimes.
              We AFFIRM Pickett’s judgment of conviction and sentence.