United States v. Robledo , 86 F. App'x 20 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 9, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20410
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DORA H. ROBLEDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-45-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dora H. Robledo appeals the sentence she received following
her guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United
States and aiding and abetting to defraud the United States
by presenting false claims to the Internal Revenue Service.
She argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level
increase to her sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing
a position of trust.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-20410
-2-
Robledo argues that the district court erred by classifying
her as occupying a position of trust. She asserts that her
position as a professional tax-return preparer was not
characterized by professional or managerial discretion.
The district court rejected this argument, adopting instead the
probation officer’s presentence report. That report described
how Robledo took information entrusted to her by clients and
falsified tax returns in any manner she saw fit. It also
described how Robledo would give her clients a refund check
without the stub attached so that the client had no way of
knowing how much Robledo had retained out of the check.
Robledo could not have done these things without exercising her
professional and managerial discretion.
Robledo has offered no evidence to rebut the findings
contained in the presentence report. Thus, she has failed to
show that the district court clearly erred in applying the two-
level enhancement. See United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825,
831-32 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300,
1304 (5th Cir. 1991); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, comment. (n.1).
AFFIRMED.