United States v. Evans ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



    ____________________


    No. 97-1147

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    DIANE C. EVANS,

    Defendant, Appellant.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
    Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________

    ____________________

    Richard N. Foley on brief for appellant. ________________
    Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Jean B. Weld, ________________ ______________
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.


    ____________________

    MAY 8, 1997
    ____________________















    Per Curiam. Upon careful consideration of the briefs __________

    and record, we conclude that defendant's sentence properly

    was enhanced for abuse of a position of trust under U.S.S.G.

    3B1.3.

    We agree with the district court's interpretation of the

    guideline terms, and we find no clear error in its

    application of those terms to the facts of this case. See ___

    United States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1289 (1st Cir. ______________ _______

    1992). The enhancement was fully supported by a showing

    that defendant's position "provided the freedom to commit a

    difficult-to-detect wrong." See id. The district court ___ __

    outlined the elements of defendant's position of private

    trust with her employer, her actual use of that position to

    commit and conceal her thefts, and the significant way in

    which that position contributed to the misconduct, including

    her primary and "managerial" responsibility for two accounts

    and her transfers between those accounts to cover her thefts.

    See U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, application note 1; United States v. ___ ______________

    Santiago-Gonzalez, 66 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 1995). _________________

    Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___













    -2-






Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1147

Filed Date: 5/8/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015