Court Opinion

ID: 2964948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:18.878479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:03.975848
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1433

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ROBERT A. SMITH,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Van L. Hayhow on brief for appellant.
            _____________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret  E. Curran
            ___________________                            ___________________
        and Richard W.  Rose, Assistant United States Attorneys,  on brief for
            ________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 10, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed  the briefs of
                 ___________

            the  parties  and  the  record  on  appeal,  and  we  affirm.

            Appellant  Robert Smith ("Smith")  challenges his sentence on

            bank fraud  charges.  He  claims the district court  erred in

            concluding he was an "organizer  or leader" of the bank fraud

            scheme, and so it erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to

            U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(a).  We  give the district court's  findings

            "due deference" and reverse only  for clear error.  18 U.S.C.

              3742(e); United States v. Tejada-Beltran,  50 F.3d 105, 110
                       _______________________________

            (1st Cir. 1995).

                 No  clear  error  was  committed.    The  uncontroverted

            evidence at  sentencing showed  Smith decided  where to  make

            deposits and withdrawals  and when and how  much to withdraw.

            He accompanied  many of  the recruits to  the banks  and took

            physical possession  of the money.   He gave each  recruit 25

            per  cent of  the proceeds  and kept  the larger  portion for

            himself and  his three co-conspirators.  He recruited many of

            the  29  individuals whose  bank accounts  were used  for the

            scheme.   Thus,  Smith  exercised decision-making  authority,

            participated  heavily   in  the  ongoing   scheme,  recruited

            accomplices, claimed  a larger  share  of the  fruits of  the

            crime  (for  himself  and  his  three  co-conspirators),  and

            exercised  control  and  authority over  the  recruits.   See
                                                                      ___

            U.S.S.G.   3B1.1 n.4.

                                         -2-

                 Smith's  counsel suggests  Smith took  instructions from

            other participants in  the scheme.  But there  is no evidence

            in the  record to  support  counsel's version  of the  facts.

            Even if this  evidence were present, the court  still did not

            commit  clear error in concluding Smith  was an "organizer or

            leader;"  ample evidence existed to satisfy the other factors

            listed in  the sentencing  guideline commentary.   The  court

            need  not  find  every  listed  factor in  order  to  find  a

            defendant  was  a "leader  or organizer."   United  States v.
                                                        _________________

            Preakos, 907 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _______

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -3-