United States v. Tracey Wright , 458 F. App'x 230 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4251
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TRACEY CAROL WRIGHT, a/k/a Tracey Hakes Wright,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.       Thomas David
    Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00026-TDS-1)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2011            Decided:   December 15, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Frank J. Chut, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tracey Carol Wright pled guilty to making, possessing,
    and uttering a counterfeit security, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 513
     (2006).        Wright appeals her sentence, arguing that the
    district court erred by finding that the intended loss was equal
    to the face value of the counterfeit check that Wright tendered
    as payment for a home.             Wright argues that she knew she could
    not have escaped detection, and thus could not have intended to
    cause a loss equal to the full value of the check.                     We affirm.
    This    Court     reviews     the       district     court’s    factual
    findings for clear error, and its legal interpretation of the
    Guidelines de novo.          See United States v. Dawkins, 
    202 F.3d 711
    ,
    714 (4th Cir. 2000).          Additionally, because Wright did not raise
    her claim of error in the district court, this Court’s review is
    for plain error.        United States v. Hargrove, 
    625 F.3d 170
    , 184
    (4th Cir. 2010) (requiring specific objections where defendant
    goes beyond “simply challenging the substantive reasonableness
    of   [a]     sentence        due    to     its       length       or    non-specific
    considerations”), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 
    2011 WL 4536007
    (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011).          Thus, Wright bears the burden of showing
    “that   an   error   (1)     was   made,       (2)   is   plain   (i.e.,    clear   or
    obvious), and (3) affects substantial rights.”                    United States v.
    Lynn, 
    592 F.3d 572
    , 577 (4th Cir. 2010).
    2
    Intended loss “includes intended pecuniary harm that
    would have been impossible or unlikely to occur.”                     USSG § 2B1.1
    cmt.    n.3(A)(ii).           Although      at     some    point    “the     extreme
    improbability of a loss might undermine a finding of intent,”
    this is not such a case.           United States v. Stockheimer, 
    157 F.3d 1082
    , 1090 (7th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. McBride,
    
    362 F.3d 360
    , 374-75 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming loss calculation
    which    included    market    value     of   residences      owned   by    district
    judge, defense attorneys, and IRS agent against whom McBride
    filed fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions).                      Wright did
    not clearly show below that she lacked the intent to cause a
    loss    equal   to   the   full    amount     of   the    check;   indeed,    Wright
    tendered the check for the purchase price of the house after an
    initial check for rent of the same house was discovered to be
    worthless.      See United States v. Himler, 
    355 F.3d 735
    , 740-41
    (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Miller, 
    316 F.3d 495
    , 505 (4th
    Cir. 2003).       Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
    determining the intended loss amount.
    Accordingly, we affirm Wright’s sentence.                    We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are
    adequately      presented     in   the   materials        before   the    court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3