US v. Thomas Kimmel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00057-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999791537].. [14-4790]
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS L. KIMMEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:13-cr-00057-D-1)
Argued:
March 24, 2016
Decided:
April 8, 2016
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Robert Earl Waters, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Kristine L.
Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Thomas P. McNamara, Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney,
Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
The
months’
district
court
imprisonment
sentenced
after
a
jury
Thomas
L.
convicted
Kimmel
him
on
to
264
multiple
counts relating to his participation in a Ponzi scheme.
On
appeal, Kimmel challenges the three-level sentencing enhancement
he received for his role as a manager or supervisor of the
conspiracy.
For the reasons set forth within, we vacate and
remand for resentencing.
I.
In 2005, James Kirk invited Kimmel to join in a business
venture buying and selling used cars.
Kirk incorporated the
portion
in-house
of
the
business
that
provided
financing
to
customers under the name Sure Line Acceptance Corporation (“Sure
Line”) and served as its Chief Executive Officer.
Sure Line
raised additional funds for the business by offering investments
purportedly
secured
by
the
vehicle
titles
and
accounts
receivable.
Kimmel, who had been conducting debt-counseling seminars at
churches throughout the country, became the principal fundraiser
for Sure Line by selling its securities to seminar attendees.
While promoting the notes, Kimmel made several false statements
regarding the degree of risk in the investment and his role at
2
Appeal: 14-4790
Sure
Doc: 65
Line.
Filed: 04/08/2016
For
his
Pg: 3 of 7
efforts,
Kimmel
earned
a
ten
percent
commission on all proceeds he generated for the company.
Although
conducted
Stewards.
his
Kimmel
was
seminars
Sure
Line’s
through
his
top
own
sales
person,
business,
he
Faithful
As such, while Kimmel made several suggestions to
Kirk aimed at improving the company’s fundraising, he did not
make any decisions regarding the day-to-day operations of Sure
Line.
Kirk accepted Kimmel’s recommendations but testified at
trial that Kimmel neither sought nor accepted general authority
over Sure Line’s operations or employees.
Sure
Line
began
as
a
legitimate
business,
but
became
a
fraudulent Ponzi scheme when the financial crisis halted used
car purchases and the company began using new investor money to
make
interest
payments
to
earlier
investors.
As
is
to
be
expected, this arrangement merely postponed the inevitable bust,
which
occurred
in
January
2012
million dollars in economic loss.
and
resulted
in
over
sixteen
On August 21, 2013, a federal
grand jury indicted Kimmel on multiple counts related to his
involvement in the fraudulent scheme.
While Kirk and other Sure Line employees pled guilty and
eventually
cooperated
stand trial.
conspiracy
unlawful
to
with
the
Government,
Kimmel
elected
to
The jury convicted Kimmel on several counts of
commit
monetary
mail
and
wire
transactions.
3
fraud
and
In
the
engaging
in
presentence
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 4 of 7
investigation report, the Probation Office recommended several
sentencing
Kimmel’s
enhancements,
role
as
an
including
organizer
or
a
four-level
leader
of
increase
the
for
conspiracy,
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Comm’n 2012).
Kimmel objected to this
enhancement at sentencing.
The
district
court
found
that,
although
the
conspiracy
involved only four participants and perhaps implicated a fifth,
the scheme was certainly “extensive.”
before
us
this
threshold
§ 3B1.1 enhancement.
finding,
Kimmel does not challenge
necessary
to
support
the
Next, the district court considered the
seven factors found in the commentary to § 3B1.1 that assist in
the evaluation of a defendant’s role in an offense.
§ 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.
See id.
Weighing these factors, the court determined
that the facts proved at trial did not support a four-level
enhancement for organizers or leaders under § 3B1.1(a), but did
support
a
three-level
increase
supervisors under § 3B1.1(b).
applicable
to
managers
and
The court then sentenced Kimmel
to 264 months’ imprisonment, a term that reflects additional
enhancements and a downward variance.
Kimmel noted this timely
appeal, challenging the three-level sentencing enhancement.
4
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 5 of 7
II.
Guidelines
§ 3B1.1(b)
provides
for
a
three-level
enhancement “[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but
not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved
five
or
more
§ 3B1.1(b).
participants
or
was
otherwise
extensive.”
Id.
The commentary to the Guidelines explains that the
enhancement is appropriate only when the defendant was a manager
or supervisor “of one or more other participants,” as opposed to
“exercis[ing]
management
responsibility
over
the
assets, or activities of a criminal organization.”
cmt.
n.2.
“A
‘participant’
is
a
person
who
property,
Id. § 3B1.1
is
criminally
responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have
been convicted.”
Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1.
In accordance with the
Guidelines, we have long held that a defendant must have been a
“manager or supervisor of people” to warrant the enhancement.
United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 226 (4th Cir. 2002).
We
review
the
district
court’s
“essentially
factual”
determination that the defendant was a manager or supervisor for
clear error.
Cir. 2013).
United States v. Steffen, 741 F.3d 411, 414 (4th
Our review is not limited to the reasoning of the
district court, thus we will find clear error “only when, after
reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
5
Id. at 415
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 6 of 7
III.
Kimmel
argues
that
the
district
court
clearly
erred
in
concluding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy
because
he
did
not
exercise
any
control
over
other
people.
Based on our review of the record, we must agree.
In its analysis of the § 3B1.1 factors, the district court
made several factual findings that we believe accurately reflect
the record evidence.
First, the court found that Kimmel “had a
specific role,” which was to “raise money for Sure Line.”
The
court also found that Kimmel was “responsible for marketing the
program,”
served
as
its
“principal
fundraiser,”
and
received
“the second highest share of the fruits of the fraud.”
other
hand,
accomplices
the
in
court
the
found
fraud,”
that
and
Kimmel
did
not
“did
not
On the
recruit
“exercise[]
formal
decision-making authority within Sure Line in terms of its dayto-day operations.”
These factual findings, and the Guidelines factors on which
they
bear,
certainly
demonstrate
that
Kimmel
significant role in the extensive fraudulent scheme.
played
a
Yet these
facts do not establish that Kimmel ever managed or supervised
people, which is a necessary finding to support the enhancement.
See, e.g., Sayles, 296 F.3d at 226-27.
Our independent review
of the record confirms that Kimmel, an important fundraiser, did
not exert control over any other participant in the scheme.
6
Appeal: 14-4790
Doc: 65
Filed: 04/08/2016
Pg: 7 of 7
The only instances we have found in the record when Kimmel
arguably
influenced
another
participant
are
the
times
Kimmel
proposed changes to Sure Line’s fundraising operations to Kirk,
like creating a “spiritual board of advisors.”
But the district
court found that these interactions were mere “suggestions” that
Kimmel made “to better enable [Kimmel] to raise money for Sure
Line.”
Even though Kirk frequently accepted these unsolicited
recommendations, we agree with the district court that they are
best
understood
as
suggestions,
not
instances
managed or supervised a fellow participant.
where
Kimmel
Thus, we conclude
that the district court clearly erred when it enhanced Kimmel’s
sentence pursuant to § 3B1.1(b) without finding that he managed
or supervised people.
Kimmel must be resentenced. *
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
VACATED AND REMANDED.
*
Because we vacate Kimmel’s sentence and remand for
resentencing, we need not decide whether the original sentence
was substantively unreasonable, as Kimmel contends.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?