United States v. Faye Bass ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-30601      Document: 00515386029         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-30601                             April 17, 2020
    Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    FAYE ALICE BASS,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 5:19-CR-64-1
    Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Faye Alice Bass appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea
    conviction for theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. She
    contends that the district court erred when it enhanced her sentence for
    obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Bass argues that the
    enhancement did not apply to her false statements to non-law enforcement
    personnel employed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and that her
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-30601     Document: 00515386029     Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    No. 19-30601
    false statements to the SSA special agents were insufficient to warrant the
    enhancement because there was no evidence that her misconduct significantly
    obstructed or impeded the investigation.
    We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
    Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
    Stubblefield, 
    942 F.3d 666
    , 668 (5th Cir. 2019).               The district court’s
    determination that a defendant obstructed justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual
    finding that we review for clear error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 
    513 F.3d 204
    , 208 (5th Cir. 2008). “There is no clear error if the district court’s
    finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.”
    Id. Bass does
    not dispute that her statements were materially false or that
    she willfully attempted to obstruct justice. Although she argues that our
    analysis is limited to her statements to the SSA special agents, her earlier
    interactions with SSA personnel may be considered because the record allows
    for a plausible finding that her conduct was intended to thwart the SSA’s active
    or future investigation into her theft of government funds. See 
    Stubblefield, 942 F.3d at 669-70
    ; United States v. Alexander, 
    602 F.3d 639
    , 641-42 & n.3 (5th
    Cir. 2010). Further, the fact that Bass’s false statements may have also formed
    the basis of her offense of conviction does not preclude their consideration. See
    § 3C1.1, comment. (n.7); United States v. Richardson, 
    713 F.3d 232
    , 237 (5th
    Cir. 2013).
    The record reflects that Bass’s repeated false statements caused the SSA
    to expend additional time and resources to disprove her assertion that she and
    her husband were separated and no longer lived together. Bass’s interaction
    with SSA personnel in 2014, together with her husband’s coached responses,
    were intended to throw off the SSA’s suspicions and delayed the SSA’s official
    investigation by an additional four years, resulting in a greater loss to the
    2
    Case: 19-30601    Document: 00515386029     Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/17/2020
    No. 19-30601
    government.    In February 2018, the SSA assigned a technical expert to
    investigate Bass’s possible fraud. As a result of Bass’s false statements to the
    technical expert, the SSA had to take the additional investigative step of
    sending agents to interview Bass at her home. During this interview, Bass
    continued to lie and contradict her earlier statements. Although the SSA
    special agents may not have believed Bass, they were forced to expend
    additional time and resources questioning her neighbors in order to disprove
    her claims. In light of the foregoing, Bass cannot show that the district court’s
    determination that her repeated false statements significantly impeded the
    investigation was implausible in light of the record as a whole. See United
    States v. Brooks, 
    681 F.3d 678
    , 717 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Phipps,
    
    319 F.3d 177
    , 191-92 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Bass has not shown that
    the district court clearly erred in applying the obstruction of justice
    enhancement. See 
    Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3