eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-10

United States v. Myrna Quarles ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-30062     Document: 00515599571         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/13/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-30062                          October 13, 2020
Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Myrna Thomas Quarles,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:19-CR-167-1
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Myrna Thomas Quarles appeals her within-guidelines-range sentence
of 71 months of imprisonment for theft of government property. She
contends that the district court erred by (1) applying a two-level
enhancement for using a sophisticated means to commit or conceal the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30062        Document: 00515599571           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/13/2020
No. 20-30062
offense, (2) applying a two-level enhancement for being an organizer, leader,
supervisor, or manager of the criminal activity; (3) applying a two-level
enhancement for abusing a position of private trust; (4) double counting the
aggravating-role and abuse-of-trust enhancements; and (5) relying on facts
contained in the presentence report (PSR) that lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability. We affirm.
As a threshold matter, the district court did not clearly or obviously
err by relying on the facts contained in the PSR because those facts were
based on the probation officer’s conversations with the investigating case
agent. See United States v. Vela,
    927 F.2d 197
    , 201 (5th Cir. 1991); see generally
Puckett v. United States,
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009); United States v. Warren,
    720 F.3d 321
    , 332 (5th Cir. 2013).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Quarles’s use of
her personal credit union account to launder the ill-gotten proceeds of her
theft   scheme      constituted    sophisticated     means.       See    U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); United States v. Valdez,
    726 F.3d 684
    , 692 (5th Cir. 2013).
We have affirmed the application of § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) in materially similar
circumstances. See United States v. Clements,
    73 F.3d 1330
    , 1340 (5th Cir.
1996). Quarles’s argument amounts to a mere disagreement with the district
court’s finding.
Nor did the district court clearly err in finding that Quarles was at least
a supervisor or manager of the criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c);
United States v. Ochoa-Gomez,
    777 F.3d 278
    , 281-82 (5th Cir. 2015); United
States v. Le,
    512 F.3d 128
    , 134 (5th Cir. 2007). The court could infer from
the available facts that Quarles—the director of Greater Horizons and board
member of Webster United Federal Credit Union—devised the theft
scheme, applied for Greater Horizons to take part in the program in question,
and submitted the fraudulent reimbursement claims; that three Webster
2
Case: 20-30062        Document: 00515599571           Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/13/2020
No. 20-30062
employees who helped conceal Quarles’s theft by laundering the ill-gotten
gains did so at Quarles’s behest, in furtherance of Quarles’s fraudulent
scheme, and within the scope of that scheme; that the actions of the Webster
employees were reasonably foreseeable in connection with the theft scheme;
and that Quarles profited far more than any other participant from the
scheme. See United States v. Ismoila,
    100 F.3d 380
    , 394 (5th Cir. 1996);
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). We have affirmed the application of § 3B1.1(c) in
materially similar circumstances. See United States v. St. Junius,
    739 F.3d 193
    , 208 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Reagan,
    725 F.3d 471
    , 494 (5th Cir.
2013).
Quarles also fails to show clear error in the district court’s finding that
she abused a position of private trust in a way that significantly facilitated the
commission or concealment of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3; United
States v. Miller,
    906 F.3d 373
    , 376-77 (5th Cir. 2018). The record permits a
plausible finding that Quarles occupied a position of trust with Greater
Horizons as its director and that she used that position to significantly
facilitate the theft of government property by submitting fraudulent
reimbursement forms. See United States v. Coleman,
    609 F.3d 699
    , 708 (5th
Cir. 2010). Thus, “[w]ithout [Quarles], it would have been extraordinarily
difficult, if not impossible, for [Greater Horizons] to accomplish its criminal
pursuits.” St.
    Junius, 739 F.3d at 209
    .
Lastly, Quarles shows no error, plain or otherwise, in the district
court’s dual application of the § 3B1.1(c) and § 3B1.3 enhancements. See
    Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135
    ;
    Warren, 720 F.3d at 332
    . Neither Guideline
expressly prohibits double counting. See United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez,
    862 F.3d 527
    , 541 (5th Cir. 2017). In fact, § 3B1.3 expressly permits dual
application with § 3B1.1 where, as here, the § 3B1.3 adjustment “is based
upon an abuse of a position of trust.” § 3B1.3.
3
Case: 20-30062   Document: 00515599571      Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/13/2020
No. 20-30062
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
4