USA v. Bunnie Morri
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-30972 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 04/17/2015 for Appellant Bunnie Morris [14-30972]
Case: 14-30972
Document: 00512984453
Page: 1
Date Filed: 03/27/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-30972
Summary Calendar
FILED
March 27, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BUNNIE MORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:13-CR-239-1
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Bunnie Morris appeals the 29-month below-guidelines sentence imposed
following her guilty plea conviction for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344. Morris challenges the district court’s application of a two-level increase
for abuse of a position of trust. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. For the § 3B1.3 increase
to apply, the defendant must have occupied a position of trust
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*
Case: 14-30972
Document: 00512984453
Page: 2
Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 14-30972
and used the position to conceal or facilitate the crime.
United States v.
St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 209 (5th Cir. 2013). Review is for clear error. United
States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 248 (5th Cir. 2012).
Waste Auditors, Inc., employed Morris as a financial accountant or
bookkeeper from 1998 until 2009. President Irving Pratt hired Morris because
she was the wife of his good friend and treated her like “extended family, a
trusted confidant, and a key employee.”
Morris maintained records of
corporate spending; she prepared checks for expenses and payroll and obtained
the necessary signatures. In 2001, Morris began creating fictitious expenses
for different employees and forging their endorsement on the reimbursement
checks; forging Pratt’s signature on checks she had issued to herself and
altering the books to reflect that the checks had been voided; and authorizing
pay raises and bonuses for herself. For years, Pratt was concerned about the
lack of profitability in spite of steadily improving sales. Pratt and Morris
would meet regularly to discuss his financial concerns, and Pratt would
identify “an area of expense to investigate.” Morris, however, “would come in
after hours and on weekends to create a false report hiding her dishonest
deeds.” Between 2001 and 2009, Morris stole a total of $579,050.32.
Morris contends that the district court erred by finding that she was in
a position of trust because such a position requires managerial or professional
discretion while her position was merely clerical. However, it was because of
her position that she knew how expenses were tracked and knew how to falsify
her bookkeeping records. Furthermore, Morris was tasked with investigating
her own fraud. The fact that Pratt relied on Morris to investigate expenses in
areas of concern and trusted her falsified reports is what allowed her to
continue stealing and to conceal her crime for eight years. It is this lack of
supervision and her employer’s reliance on her investigations that
2
Case: 14-30972
Document: 00512984453
Page: 3
Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 14-30972
distinguishes her position from one that is merely clerical. See United States
v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he primary trait that
distinguishes a person in a position of trust from one who is not is the extent
to which the position provides the freedom to commit a difficult-to-detect
wrong.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Morris has failed to
show that the district court clearly erred when it assessed a two-level increase
to her offense level under § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3
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?