Court Opinion

ID: 9481730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:29:28.260626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:31.943576
License: Public Domain

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. The majority concludes that Cas-tagnet’s position as a junior station agent is a position of trust pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.3. I disagree.
According to the commentary accompanying § 3B1.3, a two point upward adjustment is warranted for abuse of a position of trust if “[t]he position of trust ... contributed in some substantial way to facilitating the crime and not merely ... provided an opportunity that could as easily have been afforded to other persons.” Commentary to the Guidelines Manual, Section 3B1.3 Application Note 1. In attempting to define the parameters of position of trust, the commentary asserts: “This adjustment, for example, would not apply to an embezzlement by an ordinary bank teller.” Id. Simply stated, I do not believe that Castag-net’s position falls within this description. Castagnet was a junior station agent who was required to use a computer to process reservations and issue tickets. In essence, Castagnet’s position allowed him to distribute merchandise in return for payments. Accordingly, I cannot find that in this capacity Castagnet was endowed with more trust or responsibility than an ordinary bank teller.
I believe that the proper test for determining whether an individual maintains a position of trust is that formulated by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502 (9th Cir.1990). Under this test, an employee would not be in a position of trust if: (1) “there is a simple, objective method for determining whether [the employee] has embezzled funds”; and (2) it is easy for management to survey the employee’s actions. Id. at 505. Applying this test to the case at bar, it seems evident that Castagnet should not be considered to hold a position of trust. Upon balancing its ledger for each period, Piedmont could have easily determined whether various ticket agents had improperly issued tickets. Indeed, before Castagnet committed the offense for which he was convicted, Piedmont had discovered that Castagnet had been improperly issuing himself airline tickets and had dismissed him as an employee. Clearly then, Piedmont had objective methods for concluding whether junior ticket agents had embezzled funds, as well as an adequate opportunity to oversee these agents’ actions.
Although the majority does not address whether an upward adjustment is warranted under the second prong of § 3B1.3 — use of a special skill — I find that an upward adjustment on this basis would also be unjustified. The Application Notes to § 3B1.3 provide: “ ‘Special skill’ refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.” Commentary to the Guidelines Manual, Section 3B1.3 Application Note 2. The district court concluded that in learning how to access Piedmont’s computer, Castagnet acquired a “job related skill that did in fact require training.” In this age of computers, however, it is difficult to categorize the ability to access a computer as a special skill. Presumably a company can teach a new employee to operate its computers within a few days or even hours. Indeed, it would distort the meaning of § 3B1.3 to determine that basic computer operation requires the same training and education as the other positions enumerated in the Application Note.
*64For the reasons set forth, I would vacate Castagnet’s sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing.