United States v. Jonathan E. Shannon

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4664
JONATHAN ERIC SHANNON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-51)
Submitted: May 18, 1999
Decided: July 6, 1999
Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney,
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Eric Shannon was convicted of mail fraud pursuant to his
guilty plea. On appeal, he alleges that the district court erroneously
calculated the amount of loss attributable to him. Finding no error, we
affirm.
Shannon worked as a computer systems administrator for Shionogi
Qualicaps, Inc. ("Shionogi"), for approximately eight months. During
this time, he also owned his own computer company, Computer Cus-
toms, Inc. ("Computer Customs"). Shannon admitted that after he left
Shionogi, he entered the company's computer system from his home
computer and altered the address on a vendor invoice so that the
check would be mailed to a post office box registered to Computer
Customs. Shannon ultimately cashed this check and deposited it into
his bank account.1 The Government presented additional evidence at
sentencing showing that three invoices from Computer Customs were
altered in the computer to reflect amounts owed that were approxi-
mately ten times the original amount. The incorrect amounts were
never paid, however, because of Shionogi's routine practice of match-
ing the amounts shown in the computer to the actual invoices. On
appeal, Shannon challenges the district court's inclusion of one of
these altered invoices in its calculation of the amount of loss attribut-
able to him.2
We review the district court's calculation concerning the amount of
loss for clear error and its application of a loss enhancement de novo.
See United States v. Chatterji, 46 F.3d 1336, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995).
The loss suffered focuses on the value of the money, property, or ser-
_________________________________________________________________
1 Shannon spent approximately $22,000 of the $75,724.33 check.
2 The district court declined to make a finding as to two of the invoices
because the amounts were too small to affect the sentencing calculation.
2
vices unlawfully taken.3 In the present case, we find no error in the
district court's loss calculation or its application of the loss enhance-
ment.
As a threshold matter, Shannon bears the burden of showing that
the information in the presentence report is incorrect (mere objections
are insufficient), see United States v. Terry , 916 F.2d 157, 162 (4th
Cir. 1990), and Shannon failed to meet this burden. While working
for Shionogi, Shannon was one of only a few people who could enter
the company's master vendor file, make changes in addresses and
amounts owed or paid, and exit without leaving an audit trail showing
who made the changes. In addition, Shannon, as the sole owner of
Computer Customs, was the only person who would benefit from the
invoice changes. Finally, Shannon had a "hypothetical" discussion
with another Shionogi employee about diverting company checks to
himself. Contrary to Shannon's assertions, we find that this evidence
constitutes more than mere speculation.
Accordingly, we affirm Shannon's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
3 See USSG § 2F1.1(b)(1), comment. (n. 8).
3