US v. Mercy Coffie-Joseph

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00213-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999755130]. [14-4924]

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4924

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MERCY COFFIE-JOSEPH, a/k/a Mercy A. Coffie,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:13-cr-00213-RWT-1)

Submitted:

September 15, 2015

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 16, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, PA, Columbia,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Margaret A. Moeser, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Mercy Coffie-Joseph was convicted of five counts of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; two counts of money
laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957; two
counts of passport fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542; and
one

count

of

aggravated

18 U.S.C. § 1028A.

identity

theft,

in

violation

of

Coffie-Joseph’s Guidelines range for counts

one through nine was 57 to 71 months, but the district court
varied

upward

and

sentenced

imprisonment on those counts.

Coffie-Joseph

to

96

months’

On count ten, the district court

imposed the statutorily-mandated consecutive term of 24 months,
bringing

Coffie-Joseph’s

total

sentence

to

120

months.

On

appeal, Coffie-Joseph claims that her sentence is unreasonable.
For

the

reasons

that

follow,

we

affirm

the

judgment

of

the

district court.

I.
At Coffie-Joseph’s sentencing hearing on November 25, 2014,
the

district

Sentencing
underlying

court

adopted

Report,

which

Coffie-Joseph’s

the

factual

detailed

findings
the

convictions.

of

the

criminal

Pre-

conduct

Coffie-Joseph

stole

over $470,000 from her former employer, Systems Assessment and
Research
Hankerson.

Corporation,

and

Coffie-Joseph

the

company’s

also
2

stole

the

founder,
identity

Dr.

Maria

of

Nancy

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 7

Joseph, a resident of Ohio who shared the same last name and
birth

date

as

Coffie-Joseph.

Coffie-Joseph

used

the

stolen

identity to obtain a valid United States passport to visit the
home in Ghana she had purchased with the misappropriated funds.
After her arrest, Coffie-Joseph obstructed justice during her
interview with U.S. Pretrial Services and her initial detention
hearing

by

refusing

to

disclose

her

falsely-procured

U.S.

passport and failing to report the additional $18,000 in income
she had fraudulently received through unemployment benefits.
At Coffie-Joseph’s sentencing hearing, which took place on
November 25, 2014, the district court calculated Coffie-Joseph’s
offense level to be 25 and her criminal history category to be
I.

J.A.

769.

This

yielded

a

Guidelines

range

of

57

to

71 months’ imprisonment on counts one through nine, followed by
the mandatory 24-month consecutive term for count ten.

Id.

The district court concluded, however, “that a guideline
sentence would not be sufficient to comply with the purposes of
sentencing

set

forth

in

federal

law,”

and

explained

conclusion as follows:
It is really kind of hard to capture the seriousness
of this offense with the dry technical criteri[a] of
the guidelines.
But if I take a look simply at the
maximums that Congress has provided for the offenses
of conviction in this case, in the case of Counts One
through Six, a maximum of 20 years, Count Seven
through Nine, ten years, and Count Ten, two years
consecutive, I cannot imagine that Congress could have
conceived of something in the form of the crimes
3

that

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 4 of 7

committed in Counts One through Six that could be
worse than this unless you want to do it solely in
terms of amount of loss. This is something where the
amount of the loss while a tragic circumstance for the
principal victim in this case, Ms. Hankerson doesn’t
tell the story.
It’s not the amount of the loss.
It’s the consequences of that loss to a lovely woman
who set up a successful business that should have
succeeded and been prospering rather than being in
ruins.
And when you consider that Congress thought
the worst case scenario was worth 20 years, the
question is whether something half that long is
sufficient.
Id. at 802-803.
Ultimately, the district court sentenced Coffie-Joseph to a
total

of

120

months’

imprisonment,

comprising

96

months

on

counts one through nine and a consecutive term of 24 months on
count ten.

Id. at 803-04.

The district court thus imposed a

sentence 26% above the upper end of Coffie-Joseph’s Guidelines
range.

Appellant’s Br. at 7.

Coffie-Joseph appealed.

Coffie-Joseph contends that her sentence is unreasonable,
arguing that the district court failed to adequately explain how
a

sentence

within

the

Guidelines

range

would

have

been

insufficient to serve the requirements of 18 U.S.C § 3553(a).
We disagree. *

*

We also disagree with Coffie-Joseph’s argument that her
upward varied sentence is presumptively unreasonable.
See
Appellant’s Br. at 8.
Courts of appeal “may not apply a
presumption of unreasonableness” to sentences outside the
Guidelines range.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
Instead, we “must review all sentences—whether inside,
(Continued)
4

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 5 of 7

II.
Coffie-Joseph
procedurally

does

not

contend

unreasonable.

Thus,

that

we

her

proceed

sentence
to

was

assess

the

substantive reasonableness of her sentence under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard.

See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325,

328 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007)).
In reviewing a variant sentence, “we consider whether the
sentencing
decision

court

to

acted

impose

reasonably

such

a

both

sentence

with

and

respect

its

respect

with

to
to

the

extent of the divergence from the sentencing range.”
States

v.

Hernandez-Villanueva,

2007) (citations omitted).
district

court's

decision

473

F.3d

118,

123

United

(4th

Cir.

We “must give due deference to the
that

the

§

3553(a)

whole, justify the extent of the variance.”

factors,

on

a

Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51.
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

offered

ample

justification for its 26% upward variance from the Guidelines
range.

The

district

court

considered

the

maximum

sentence

provided by Congress on all of Coffie-Joseph’s counts: twenty
years

on

counts

one

through

six;

ten

years

on

counts

seven

just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 41.

5

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 6 of 7

through nine; and two consecutive years on count ten.

The court

concluded that “Congress could [not] have conceived of something
in the form of crimes committed in Counts One through Six that
could be worse than this.”
Moreover,
Guidelines’

the

focus

J.A. 802.

district
on

the

court
amount

explicitly
of

stated

monetary

that

the

did

not

loss

sufficiently take into account the consequences of the crime or
the purposes of the § 3553(a) factors.

The court stated that

the sentence imposed was necessary to promote respect for the
law and deter this type of criminal conduct.

Id. at 801.

In

considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court focused on
Coffie-Joseph’s

history,

characteristics,

and

the

need

protect the public from further crimes by Coffie-Joseph.

to
See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Given

the

district

court’s

detailed

explanation

of

the

basis for the sentence imposed, we find the sentence reasonable
and defer to the judgment of the district court.

See United

States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 163 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding an
upward variance reasonable because the district court considered
the PSR and impact on the victim); see also United States v.
McNeill, 598 F.3d 161, 167 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding a sentence
reasonable

that

considered

the

seriousness

deterrence, and the defendant’s history).

6

of

the

crime,

Appeal: 14-4924

Doc: 50

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 7 of 7

III.
In

sum,

reasonable,

the
and

sentence

selected

we

Coffie-Joseph's

contrary unavailing.
why

“the

sentence.”

§

3553(a)

find

by

the

district

court

arguments

to

is
the

The district court provided ample reasons
factors,

on

the

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 60.

whole,

justified

the

The sentence imposed on

Coffie-Joseph “may not be the only reasonable sentence, but it
is a reasonable sentence, and the Supreme Court has directed
that

any

reasonable

sentence

be

upheld.”

Evans,

526

F.3d

at 166.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

7