United States v. Lisa Faulkner , 598 F. App'x 301 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-10636      Document: 00512978522         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/23/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-10636
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 23, 2015
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    LISA FAULKNER,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:14-CR-12-1
    Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Lisa Faulkner appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea
    conviction for wire fraud. Faulkner argues that the district court erred by
    imposing a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because
    the offense involved sophisticated means. We review the district court’s factual
    determination that Faulkner used sophisticated means for clear error. See
    United States v. Conner, 
    537 F.3d 480
    , 492 (5th Cir. 2008).
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10636     Document: 00512978522     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/23/2015
    No. 14-10636
    Faulkner created fictitious room revenue credits using the house account
    and issued these refunds to her personal accounts. The majority of these
    refunds corresponded to the current nightly room rate and taxes. Faulkner’s
    scheme “made it more difficult for the offense to be detected,” United States v.
    Valdez, 
    726 F.3d 684
    , 695 (5th Cir. 2013), insofar as she created fictitious
    refunds, keyed the refund amounts to the current room rates, and deposited
    the refunds into four different personal accounts. Given these facts, the district
    court’s application of the enhancement was not clear error. See 
    Conner, 537 F.3d at 492
    . Further, we are satisfied that, given the record, the Government
    has carried its burden of demonstrating that any error was harmless. See
    United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 
    628 F.3d 712
    , 718-19 (5th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10636

Citation Numbers: 598 F. App'x 301

Filed Date: 3/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023