USA v. Ericka Anderson

Filing 511159617

USA v. Ericka Anderson

Doc. 511159617

Case: 09-10489

Document: 00511159617

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-10489 S u m m a r y Calendar June 30, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. E R I C K A ANDERSON, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 3:08-CR-332-1

B e fo r e BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E r ic k a Anderson appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea c o n v ic t io n for bank fraud and aiding and abetting . She contends that the district c o u r t clearly erred when it denied her a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She argues that she acted under the direction of others, did not r e c r u it or supervise others to participate, and did not profit from the bank fraud s c h e m e . She asserts that, relative to other participants in the scheme, her role w a s considerably more peripheral to its success.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10489

Document: 00511159617 Page: 2 No. 09-10489

Date Filed: 06/30/2010

T h e district court must apply the Sentencing Guidelines and calculate the a d v is o r y range correctly. United States v. Williams, 520 F.3d 414, 422 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). Whether the defendant is a minor participant is a factual determination t h a t we review for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5 t h Cir. 2005). "A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in lig h t of the record read as a whole." Id. A n d e r s o n has not shown that the district court clearly erred in finding t h a t she was not entitled to a minor role reduction under § 3B1.2(b). She a d m it t e d ly changed the addresses associated with dormant credit card accounts a n d altered the identities of the authorized users on those accounts to enable fr a u d u le n t purchases to be made by others affiliated with the scheme. She also m o n it o r e d the accounts and, if necessary, modified the contact information a s s o c ia t e d with the accounts to insure that the existence of the scheme was not d is c o v e r e d by the true account holders. As the individual with the ability to a c c e s s and modify the dormant accounts, Anderson was central to the bank fr a u d and her role was clearly "coextensive with the conduct for which [s]he was h e ld accountable." United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir. 2001). Although Anderson may have been less culpable than others involved in the s c h e m e , her activities were not peripheral to its advancement. See Villanueva, 4 0 8 F.3d at 203-04. Because Anderson was not substantially less culpable than t h e average participant, the district court did not clearly err when it denied her a two-level reduction under § 3B1.2(b). See id. Accordingly, the district court's ju d g m e n t is AFFIRMED.

2