Filed: Dec. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACEY CAROL WRIGHT, a/k/a Tracey Hakes Wright, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00026-TDS-1) Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRACEY CAROL WRIGHT, a/k/a Tracey Hakes Wright, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00026-TDS-1) Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRACEY CAROL WRIGHT, a/k/a Tracey Hakes Wright,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00026-TDS-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Frank J. Chut, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracey Carol Wright pled guilty to making, possessing,
and uttering a counterfeit security, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 513 (2006). Wright appeals her sentence, arguing that the
district court erred by finding that the intended loss was equal
to the face value of the counterfeit check that Wright tendered
as payment for a home. Wright argues that she knew she could
not have escaped detection, and thus could not have intended to
cause a loss equal to the full value of the check. We affirm.
This Court reviews the district court’s factual
findings for clear error, and its legal interpretation of the
Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Dawkins,
202 F.3d 711,
714 (4th Cir. 2000). Additionally, because Wright did not raise
her claim of error in the district court, this Court’s review is
for plain error. United States v. Hargrove,
625 F.3d 170, 184
(4th Cir. 2010) (requiring specific objections where defendant
goes beyond “simply challenging the substantive reasonableness
of [a] sentence due to its length or non-specific
considerations”), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___,
2011 WL 4536007
(U.S. Oct. 3, 2011). Thus, Wright bears the burden of showing
“that an error (1) was made, (2) is plain (i.e., clear or
obvious), and (3) affects substantial rights.” United States v.
Lynn,
592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
Intended loss “includes intended pecuniary harm that
would have been impossible or unlikely to occur.” USSG § 2B1.1
cmt. n.3(A)(ii). Although at some point “the extreme
improbability of a loss might undermine a finding of intent,”
this is not such a case. United States v. Stockheimer,
157 F.3d
1082, 1090 (7th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. McBride,
362 F.3d 360, 374-75 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming loss calculation
which included market value of residences owned by district
judge, defense attorneys, and IRS agent against whom McBride
filed fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions). Wright did
not clearly show below that she lacked the intent to cause a
loss equal to the full amount of the check; indeed, Wright
tendered the check for the purchase price of the house after an
initial check for rent of the same house was discovered to be
worthless. See United States v. Himler,
355 F.3d 735, 740-41
(3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Miller,
316 F.3d 495, 505 (4th
Cir. 2003). Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
determining the intended loss amount.
Accordingly, we affirm Wright’s sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3