United States v. Davis, No. 16-4334 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 75 months in prison after she pleaded guilty to wire fraud, use of unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft. The court held that the presentencing report's statement that the scheme involved more than 50 participants was not material to any enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(b), and any error in overruling defendant's objection was harmless. The court also held that the district court properly overruled defendant's objections to the PSR; the district court did not err by finding that she was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more participants where defendant admitted the scheme involved more than 15 participants. Finally, the district court did not err by denying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(a).
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. Defendant's objection to references in presentence investigation report identifying fifty individuals she recruited is not material to an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 3B1.1(b) because the enhancement required only involvement of five or more participants; defendant stipulated to involvement of 15 participants and stipulated to enhancement under sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Thus, any error in overruling defendant's objection was harmless. District court did not err in finding defendant was involved in the scheme before 2015, as agent had materials and reports since 2013. As for enhancement under sec. 3B1.1(b) (manager or supervisor), evidence showed defendant exercised control over at least one participant and thus did not err in applying three-level enhancement. Denial of two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not error in light of defendant's multiple objections to the PSR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.