United States v. Trotter ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4451
TIMOTHY H. TROTTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CR-97-33)
Submitted: January 12, 1999
Decided: January 26, 1999
Before ERVIN, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jay T. McCamic, MCCAMIC & MCCAMIC, Wheeling, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney,
Sharon L. Potter, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Timothy H. Trotter appeals from his sentence imposed upon a plea
of guilty to conspiracy to structure transactions to evade reporting
requirements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994) and 31 U.S.C.
§ 5324(a)(3) (1994) (Count I), and securities fraud, in violation of 15
U.S.C. §§ 77q, 77x (1994), and 18 U.S.C.§ 2 (1994) (Count II). We
affirm.
Trotter was involved with other individuals, including Fred Gar-
zarek, in a fraudulent investment scheme. Investors were told that
their money was needed to fund efforts to free an alleged trillion dol-
lar estate that was being wrongfully held by European banks. The
money collected from investors, however, was used for the personal
benefit of those promoting the scheme, including Trotter. Trotter and
other co-conspirators orchestrated the cashing of investor money
orders and cashier's checks at facilities in and around Atlanta, Geor-
gia, in amounts less than $10,000, but aggregating in excess of
$10,000, to avoid the financial transaction reporting requirements of
31 U.S.C. § 5313 (1994).
Trotter accepted a written plea agreement, in which the Govern-
ment agreed to recommend a three-level offense level increase under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (1998), for Count II,
securities fraud. The presentence investigation report (PSR) also rec-
ommended a three-level increase under USSG § 3B1.1(b) for Trot-
ter's role in the offense as to Count II.* Trotter objected and asserted
that the three-level enhancement was not warranted because although
Trotter did supervise and manage some people, it was not to the
extent necessary to support a three-level enhancement under USSG
_________________________________________________________________
*The PSR initially recommended a four-level increase under USSG
§ 3B1.1(a) for Trotter's role in the offense, as a leader or organizer.
However, the Government objected to this adjustment on the ground that
Trotter was more of a "middle manager" as opposed to a leader or orga-
nizer, and thus only a three-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(b)
was appropriate. The PSR was subsequently amended to reflect a recom-
mendation of a three-level adjustment under § 3B1.1(b).
2
§ 3B1.1(b). The district court applied the three-level enhancement,
and imposed a sentence of twenty-seven months' imprisonment.
We review the district court's "role in the offense" adjustment for
clear error. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 518 (4th Cir.
1997). The evidence shows that Trotter and Garzarek raised funds for
the scheme through approximately twenty "coordinators." The coordi-
nators solicited and collected funds from investors, and these monies
were deposited into various bank accounts and disbursed at the direc-
tion of Trotter and others. Trotter acted as the conduit through which
the coordinators funneled money to Garzarek and others. As such, he
was a major solicitor of funds for the scheme and supervised the man-
ner in which the coordinators funneled their monies into his bank
accounts.
At the sentencing hearing, counsel admitted that Trotter did act as
a manager and did have supervision over some people, but not over
all of the coordinators. However, the evidence shows that Trotter
managed or supervised the activities of at least one other person in the
scheme, which scheme involved five or more participants. Accord-
ingly, the district court's application of a three-level adjustment under
USSG § 3B1.1(b) was not clearly erroneous. See USSG § 3B1.1(b),
comment. (n.2); United States v. Brown, 147 F.3d 477, 485-86 (6th
Cir. ), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 270 (1998); United States v. Payne, 63
F.3d 1200, 1212 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Capers, 61 F.3d
1100, 1108-09 (4th Cir. 1995).
We therefore affirm Trotter's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set
forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3