United States v. Gramer, Scott A. ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 02-1551
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    SCOTT A. GRAMER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
    No. IP01-CR-0090-02-B/F—Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.
    ____________
    ARGUED SEPTEMBER 10, 2002—DECIDED OCTOBER 16, 2002
    ____________
    Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and MANION,
    Circuit Judges.
    BAUER, Circuit Judge. The federal government indicted
    Scott Gramer on five counts of mail fraud, a violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
    . He pleaded guilty to all five counts pursuant
    to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced Gramer
    to 21 months incarceration, followed by two years of super-
    vised release. Gramer contends that the district court’s
    application of § 2F1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines was in
    error. Specifically, he argues that the sentence does not
    reflect his limited participation in the scheme and that the
    factual findings adopted by the court are irreconcilable. For
    2                                                No. 02-1551
    the reasons that follow, we find the district court’s sentenc-
    ing determination was not in error.
    BACKGROUND
    Scott Gramer, a manufacturing engineer, began working
    for Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. (IMMI) in 1994.
    IMMI is a manufacturing company in Westfield, Indiana,
    which develops seat belts, child seats, and off-road machin-
    ery. In July 1996, Harvey Adair, Jr., a fellow IMMI em-
    ployee, devised a scheme to defraud IMMI. According to
    the plan, Adair would pretend to send broken pieces of
    IMMI machinery to non-existing companies for repairs.
    Adair recruited Gramer to sign consents for the phoney
    purchase orders. An employee’s signature was necessary to
    validate the payment of the false claims.
    In addition to Gramer, Adair recruited three additional
    IMMI employees, Jack A. Reid, David N. Cook, and Neal
    Richardson, to pose as outside vendors who would purport-
    edly repair the broken machine parts.
    Gramer’s importance to the success of the overall scheme
    cannot be understated. Adair recruited Gramer to be, in
    addition to Adair himself, another employee who could
    sign off on the purchase orders. It was essential to the
    success of the plan that no single person’s name appear on
    all of the paperwork as authorizing repairs or approving
    payments. With Gramer in the scheme, Adair was able to
    alternate between the two signators so as not to raise
    suspicion. Gramer approved some of the repair requests and
    some of the payments for all the vendors involved in the
    scheme.
    The proceeds from the scheme were split among those
    involved relative to their amount of participation in the
    fraudulent activities. Each person who participated in ob-
    taining proceeds from a particular purchase order and
    No. 02-1551                                                3
    invoice received a percentage ranging from 25% to 50% of
    the proceeds. Based on the submission of fraudulent
    invoices, which continued until the summer of 2000, IMMI
    paid a total of $430,752 to the individuals or businesses
    identified in the invoice. Of the $430,752 unlawfully gained,
    Adair, as the mastermind, received $355,175. Gramer
    received $51,999 for his work in the fraud, while Reid re-
    ceived $1,378, Richardson, $6,541, and Cook $22,960.
    On November 5, 2001, Gramer pleaded guilty to five
    counts of mail fraud. The district court ordered Gramer to
    serve 21 months incarceration, followed by two years of
    supervised release. In addition, the district court ordered
    him to pay restitution in the amount of $51,999. On appeal,
    Gramer asserts that the district court incorrectly applied
    § 2F1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines in assessing an in-
    crease of nine offense levels over the basic offense level of
    six. More specifically, Gramer argues that the figures used
    by the district court in determining his sentence cannot be
    reconciled with its finding that a single scheme existed.
    ANALYSIS
    We review the district court’s calculation of the loss in-
    curred in the defendant’s offense under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 for
    clear error. United States v. Dillard, 
    43 F.3d 299
    , 309 (7th
    Cir. 1994). “A factual determination is clearly erroneous
    only if, after considering all the evidence, the reviewing
    court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
    mistake has been committed.” United States v. Irby, 
    240 F.3d 597
    , 599 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v.
    Messino, 
    55 F.3d 1241
    , 1247 (7th Cir. 1995)).
    Under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, a defendant’s sentence is based
    upon the amount of loss the defendant’s scheme caused to
    his victims. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 Application Note 8. Under
    the Guidelines, Gramer’s base offense level for violating
    4                                               No. 02-1551
    
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
     is level six. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(a). However,
    § 2F1.1(b)(1)(J) provides for an addition of nine offense
    levels if the loss in the total scheme in question is greater
    than $350,000 but less than $500,000. The district court
    found that Gramer was involved in a single overarching
    scheme resulting in a total loss to IMMI of $430,752; there-
    fore, in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1), the district
    court added an additional nine levels to the base offense
    level.
    Gramer asserts that the district court’s increase of nine
    offense levels was the result of an erroneous interpretation
    of the figures adopted by the court. He also contends that
    the numbers which the court used do not support its finding
    that a single scheme took place. Instead of a single scheme,
    Gramer contends there were multiple schemes and that he
    should be sentenced only for the scheme he participated in.
    He concludes that if a single scheme truly occurred then the
    amount attributable to him would have been greater.
    Gramer says that, because he and the other co-workers ac-
    cumulated a combined total of $82,878 while Adair made off
    with $355,175, then Adair either committed some of the
    fraudulent activity on his own or there were additional con-
    spirators whom the authorities never discovered, resulting
    in a disproportionate sentence for Gramer.
    A. Applying U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1
    Gramer supports his argument that the district court
    erred by highlighting inconsistencies between the numbers
    the district court relied upon in reaching his sentence. The
    district court adopted the figures set forth by the probation
    department in its report. The district court found that
    Gramer accumulated $51,999 while Adair accumulated
    No. 02-1551                                                   5
    $355,175.1 The court also determined that each of the par-
    ticipants in Adair’s scheme earned between 25% and 50%
    of the value of any transaction in which they took part.
    Finally, the court found that the amount of loss to IMMI
    was $430,752, an amount to which Gramer stipulated.
    As a cursory glance at these numbers reveals, the per-
    centages of 25% to 50% of compensation for each transac-
    tion participated in are not accurate in light of the large
    returns taken by Adair and the lesser amounts taken by his
    recruits. While Gramer is correct that some of the fraudu-
    lent transactions netted the recruits less than 25% of the
    proceeds, this miscalculation is not merely harmless, but
    meaningless. It is unavailing precisely because Gramer
    himself stipulated that the fraud netted a total amount of
    $430,752. This amount, $430,752, was the sole basis for the
    addition of nine offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1).
    And the district court found that there was a single, over-
    reaching scheme. So the percentage of compensation for
    Gramer is irrelevant; once the court found that Gramer was
    thoroughly involved in the scheme, he became liable for all
    of the losses that the group’s fraudulent activity entailed.
    United States v. Dillard, 
    43 F.3d 299
    , 310 (7th Cir. 1994);
    United States v. Navarez, 
    995 F.2d 759
    , 763 (7th Cir. 1993).
    The district court tacked on the additional offense levels
    based on the amount the scheme netted as a whole,
    $430,752, not because Gramer received a certain amount.
    The basic premise of U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1) is the determi-
    nation of the value of the money or property unlawfully
    taken from the victim. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 Application
    Note 8.
    1
    The court also noted that the three other individuals involved
    in the scheme netted a combined total of $30,879.
    6                                              No. 02-1551
    B. Finding a Single Scheme
    In presenting his argument that the court erred in its
    interpretation of the figures it used, Gramer also contends
    that the court should have found multiple schemes. In
    considering this argument, we review the district court’s
    factual findings in applying the Sentencing Guidelines for
    clear error. United States v. Martin, 
    287 F.3d 609
    , 616 (7th
    Cir. 2002). In finding that a single scheme existed, the
    court held Gramer liable for all the reasonably foreseeable
    actions and consequences of those participating in the
    fraud. United States v. Blackwell, 
    49 F.3d 1232
    , 1235 (7th
    Cir. 1995). Gramer claims that he was involved in a sep-
    arate, single scheme which resulted in a net loss to IMMI
    of $104,000, and his sentence should be determined using
    this figure, not $430,752. Essentially, he contends that his
    loss should be based solely on the transactions in which he
    participated. He is wrong.
    Gramer’s participation was essential to the success of the
    scheme because with multiple signators no single person’s
    name appeared on all of the paperwork as authorizing
    repairs or approving payments. Gramer’s interaction with,
    and dependence on, the other co-defendants demonstrates
    there was a single overarching scheme to defraud IMMI. As
    in United States v. Narvaez, 
    995 F.2d 759
     (7th Cir. 1993),
    there is evidence which shows Gramer was in contact with
    each participant in the scheme; he approved purchase and
    repair orders from Reid, Richardson, and Cook, and worked
    in agreement with Adair and under his supervision.
    Gramer’s role as an additional signator played a key role in
    the long (four years) success of the scheme. Gramer’s in-
    volvement with all the participants and his important
    position solidifies that Gramer was involved in a single
    scheme for which he shares full responsibility.
    Even assuming that Gramer is correct in his assertion
    that other unnamed participants were involved in the
    No. 02-1551                                                7
    scheme, Gramer did not have to be aware of other people’s
    identities or their acts, so long as the evidence showed that
    Gramer participated in the scheme. United States v.
    Adeniji, 
    221 F.3d 1020
    , 1026 (7th Cir. 1999); United States
    v. Silva, 
    781 F.2d 106
    , 108-09 (7th Cir. 1986). In situations
    involving multiple criminal participants, the Sentencing
    Guidelines instruct the courts to consider “all reasonably
    foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of
    the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” United States v.
    Blackwell, 
    49 F.3d 1232
    , 1235 (7th Cir. 1995); United States
    v. Smith, 
    897 F.2d 909
    , 910-11 (7th Cir. 1990).
    Gramer’s authorization of approving the requisite paper-
    work was part of the overall scheme devised and imple-
    mented by Adair. While Gramer may not have been the
    mastermind of the plan or the largest benefactor of the
    fraud, his fraudulent actions furthered the goal of siphon-
    ing funds from IMMI. The district court’s sentencing of
    Gramer “properly reflected the amount stolen in further-
    ance of the [scheme].” United States v. Narvaez, 
    995 F.2d 759
    , 763 (7th Cir. 1993). While Adair personally received a
    much greater portion of the final $430,752 than his co-
    workers, his longer sentence reflected that fact. Whether
    Gramer took away 10% from each transaction or 50% is
    immaterial; Gramer was guilty of participating and profit-
    ing in a single scheme to defraud IMMI.
    CONCLUSION
    While the district court may have erred in the percent-
    ages of each transaction obtained by the participants, there
    is no claim that the district court erred in the total amount
    the scheme collected. In the presentence investigation re-
    port, the government explained in great detail how it cal-
    culated the loss suffered by IMMI through the fraud.
    Gramer never disputed the amount, stipulating to this fig-
    ure during the sentencing hearing. The district court acted
    8                                             No. 02-1551
    reasonably and correctly when it calculated the losses at-
    tributable to Gramer’s participation. In addition, Gramer’s
    argument that multiple schemes existed is supported
    neither by the facts nor the figures.
    Because the district court properly sentenced the defen-
    dant, we AFFIRM the defendant’s sentence.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    ________________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—10-16-02