United States v. Dawn Haney Sloan

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 13, 2005
No. 05-10718
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00098-CR-ORL-22-DAB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAWN HANEY SLOAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 13, 2005)
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dawn Haney Sloan appeals the 16-month prison sentence that the district
court imposed for her violations of concealing property in a bankruptcy
proceeding, fraudulently making a false oath or account regarding a bankruptcy
proceeding, embezzling the property of a bankruptcy debtor, and bankruptcy fraud.
Sloan argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred when it denied her a
downward adjustment of her sentence based on her acceptance of responsibility for
her crimes. We affirm.
Sloan was a member of the skeleton crew that was responsible for
concluding the operations of her employer, American Network Exchange, Inc.
(ANE), which had entered bankruptcy. Sloan had many responsibilities on the
financial side of ANE, one of which was controlling the petty cash fund of the
company. After an investigation by other employees of ANE, several irregularities
and discrepancies were discovered in the petty cash account.
The internal review of that account determined that Sloan had stolen
approximately $35,000 from ANE. Sloan was confronted with these facts and
agreed to pay ANE full restitution. She repaid approximately $2000 through
concession of her final paycheck and another payment. During an investigation of
her theft, Sloan told the FBI that her last check was improperly held from her, and
she was entitled to that compensation.
To explain her theft, at trial Sloan testified that an ANE executive told her
2
that she would be reimbursed fully for her expenses and that her pay would be
doubled for work performed during the winding down of the business if she agreed
to stay on until the business was closed out, but Sloan’s story fell apart. The
prosecution showed that the total of fraudulently voided checks, checks made out
to “cash,” and counter checks that Sloan wrote on the account of ANE was far
greater than Sloan’s alleged reimbursement expenses and double salary during the
wind-down of the business. Although Sloan testified that she declared the
supposedly “earned” compensation on her tax return, the record showed that she
did not claim that income. Sloan also frustrated efforts to collect restitution by
changing her telephone number.
“Because the sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate the
defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, we defer to the court’s determination and
review for clear error.” See United States v. Anderson, 23 F.3d 368, 369 (11th Cir.
1994). To earn the downward adjustment in her sentence, Sloan must have
“clearly demonstrat[ed] acceptance of responsibility” for the crime she committed.
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). One of the factors regarding Sloan’s acceptance of
responsibility is her degree of truthfulness with authorities during the investigation
and prosecution of her crime. Id. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1). It is clear from the
record that Sloan was deceptive during her interviews with government agents, her
3
testimony at trial contradicted the record, and she misrepresented the income she
declared on the relevant tax return. The district court did not clearly err when it
determined Sloan did not accept responsibility for her crimes.
AFFIRMED.
4