United States v. Kristin Haynes , 442 F. App'x 276 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30344
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00034-JLQ-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KRISTIN W. HAYNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Justin L. Quackenbush, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Kristin W. Haynes appeals her sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment
following her guilty plea to four counts of failure to file an income tax return under
26 U.S.C. § 7203. Haynes asserts that the district court committed procedural error
in its calculation of her base offense level by accepting the government’s estimate
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
of tax loss attributable to her and that the court erred in failing to provide adequate
reasoning to support its sentencing decision.
1. Tax Loss Method
Haynes asserts that the district court committed procedural error by failing to
use the tax loss method provided for in the Sentencing Guidelines, and instead
relying on the government’s “direct method” calculations.
“If the offense involved failure to file a tax return, the tax loss is the amount
of tax that the taxpayer owed and did not pay.” U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(c)(2). “If the
offense involved failure to file a tax return, the tax loss shall be treated as equal to
20% of the gross income . . . less any tax withheld or otherwise paid, unless a more
accurate determination of the tax loss can be made.” U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(c)(2)(A).
The district court’s acceptance of the government’s calculation of tax loss,
which was supported by an IRS agent’s testimony and numerous tables
demonstrating Haynes’s taxable income and taxes owed, was not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A calculation of
the amount of loss is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.”).
The district court did not clearly err in accepting these calculations, despite
the government’s failure to calculate any deductions or expenses to which Haynes
may have been entitled had she filed annual tax returns. See United States v. Yip,
2
592 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We hold that §2T1.1 does not entitle a
defendant to reduce the tax loss charged to him by the amount of potentially
legitimate, but unclaimed, deductions even if those deductions are related to the
offense.”).
2. Explanation of Sentence
Haynes contends that the district court committed procedural error by not
adequately explaining its tax loss and guidelines calculations.
The district court did not clearly err by failing to provide any additional
explanation for its utilization of the “direct method” of tax loss calculation. See
United States v. Colussi, 22 F.3d 218, 220 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court need
not state reasons for its factual findings, when it makes a factual finding, and there
are no predicate issues of fact contested but not resolved.”) (citation omitted).
The district court determined the correct guidelines range, acknowledged the
guidelines are advisory and explicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. There was
no procedural error. See United States v. Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir.
2009).
AFFIRMED.
3
4