United States v. Thomas-Ingram ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    No. 97-4279
    WILLIE MAE THOMAS-INGRAM, a/k/a
    Willie Mae White, a/k/a Poochie
    Thomas,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-96-83-V)
    Submitted: April 30, 1998
    Decided: May 18, 1998
    Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Thomas G. Walker, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Willie Mae Thomas-Ingram appeals the sixty-three month sentence
    she received after pleading guilty to bank fraud and aiding and abet-
    ting bank fraud. Thomas-Ingram contends that the district court's fac-
    tual findings at the sentencing hearing were erroneous because the
    court accepted the Government's hearsay evidence over her own testi-
    mony in determining to impose certain Guidelines 1 enhancements and
    deny certain reductions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    We review a district court's factual findings underlying sentencing
    for clear error. See 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 3742
    (e) (West Supp. 1998). The
    statute directs appellate courts to give "due deference" to a court's
    application of the Guidelines to the facts of each case. 
    Id.
     "Due defer-
    ence" is a phrase of flexible interpretation, ranging from clear error
    review for factual findings to de novo review for legal determinations.
    United States v. Daughtrey, 
    874 F.2d 213
    , 217-18 (4th Cir. 1989). In
    determining facts relevant to sentencing, courts are not limited to con-
    sideration of evidence which would be admissible at trial. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3661
     (1994). Thus, the sentencing court may even consider
    uncorroborated hearsay, so long as the defendant is provided an
    opportunity to rebut or explain it. See United States v. Falesbork, 
    5 F.3d 715
    , 722 (4th Cir. 1993). Section 6A1.3(a) of the Guidelines,
    which provides that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be consid-
    ered so long as the information contains "sufficient indicia of reliabil-
    ity to support its probable accuracy," does not restrict the court's
    ability to consider reliable hearsay. See United States v. Bowman, 
    926 F.2d 380
    , 381 (4th Cir. 1991). For sentencing purposes, judges may
    consider any reliable information. 
    Id.
     (finding reliable uncorroborated
    testimony of confidential informant).
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, ("U.S.S.G. or Guidelines")
    (1995).
    2
    Thomas-Ingram, pursuant to the recommendation of the presen-
    tence report ("PSR"), received a 4-level enhancement as an organizer
    and a 2-level enhancement for obstructing justice, see USSG
    §§ 3B1.1(a), 3C1.1, and was denied a reduction for being a minor or
    minimal participant. See USSG § 3B1.2. She alleges that the district
    court erred in denying her objection to the PSR based upon its flawed
    credibility determinations at the sentencing hearing. At the hearing,
    a Secret Service agent testified based upon statements made to him
    by Thomas-Ingram's co-conspirators and other evidence gathered in
    the investigation. According to the agent's testimony, Thomas-Ingram
    was the instigator and organizer of the bank fraud scheme. She
    encouraged her co-conspirators to open the various fraudulent
    accounts, supplied fraudulent checks to deposit in these accounts, and
    divided the ill-gotten funds between the co-conspirators. Despite her
    counsel's cross-examination of the agent and Thomas-Ingram's testi-
    mony to the contrary, the sentencing judge accepted the Govern-
    ment's evidence and imposed sentence accordingly. 2 The credibility
    of Thomas-Ingram's testimony is best resolved by the trial judge, and
    we will not second guess the court's findings of fact under these cir-
    cumstances. See Bowman, 
    926 F.2d at 381
    .
    Accordingly, we affirm Thomas-Ingram's sentence. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    _________________________________________________________________
    2 Thomas-Ingram alleges no error in the court's interpretation or appli-
    cation of the Guidelines other than its factual findings at the sentencing
    hearing.
    3