US v. Kevin Carden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:15-cr-00016-MJG-2 and 1:15-cr-00016-MJG-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000031002]. [16-4349, 16-4350]

Appeal: 16-4349

Doc: 41

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4349

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN CARDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BEVERLY CARDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00016-MJG-2; 1:15-cr-00016-MJG-1)

Submitted:

February 23, 2017

Decided:

February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Appeal: 16-4349

Doc: 41

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald C. Ruter, LAW OFFICE OF GERALD C. RUTER PC, Baltimore,
Maryland; James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Jefferson McClure Gray, Evan T. Shea, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-4349

Doc: 41

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Carden and Beverly Carden owned and operated AccuPay,
Inc., a payroll service company that received money from small
companies for the purpose of making payroll payments to AccuPay’s
clients’ employees and to withhold and pay over to the Internal
Revenue Service payroll tax withholdings.

Instead of making the

agreed payments, the Cardens diverted funds from client accounts
into their personal checking accounts to be used for the Cardens’
personal expenses.
Kevin Carden pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343 (2012), and one count of filing a false tax return, 26
U.S.C. § 7206(1) (2012), and Beverly pled guilty to one count of
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of filing a false tax
return.

The district court varied upward as to both Kevin and

Beverly, sentencing Kevin to 72 months’ imprisonment, and Beverly
to 60 months’ imprisonment.

They appeal, arguing that their

sentences are substantively unreasonable.
We

review

reasonableness,

a

sentence

applying

for

“an

We affirm.

procedural

and

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

substantive
standard.”

A district court

“has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines
range,” United States v. Diosdado–Star, 630 F.3d 359, 364 (4th
Cir.

2011),

and

need

only

“set

forth

enough

to

satisfy

the

appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments
3

Appeal: 16-4349

Doc: 41

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

and has a reasoned basis” for its decision.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
sentence,

we

consider

whether

the

Id. (quoting Rita v.

“In reviewing a variant

sentencing

court

acted

reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a
sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the
sentencing range.”

United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 944

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The

district

Guidelines

range

court
as

57

properly
to

71

calculated

months,

Guidelines range as 46 to 57 months.

and

Kevin

Carden’s

Beverly

Carden’s

The court heard arguments

from both parties, including the Government’s suggestion of a
below-Guidelines

sentence

for

Beverly

and

a

within-Guidelines

sentence for Kevin, considered the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012), and explained its rationale for the slight upward
variant sentences it imposed.

The district court considered the

arguments asserted in mitigation, but concluded that a slight
upward variance from the Guidelines range was justified in each
case due to the long-term nature of the fraud, the extensive victim
impact, and the need for deterrence.

Having reviewed the record

and the district court’s thorough explanation of its sentences, we
conclude

that

the

Cardens’

respective

variance

sentences

are

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments.

We

substantively reasonable.

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
4

Appeal: 16-4349

Doc: 41

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 5 of 5

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5