United States v. Belia Mendoza
685 F. App'x 345
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Belia Mendoza owned Mendez Tax Service (MTS) in El Paso and supervised/ trained two preparers (her daughter and niece) who prepared tax returns for clients from 1999 through at least 2010.
- MTS preparers prepared numerous returns with similar false or inflated items (Schedule C income, education credits, dependents/child-care expenses, business expenses, exemptions, filing status); many clients did not know returns were false.
- Mendoza, her daughter, and niece were indicted on a 22-count indictment for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and multiple counts of aiding/preparing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)); they were tried jointly and Mendoza was convicted on most counts.
- Mendoza admitted to IRS agents that she prepared/ inflated returns because she “got greedy,” and allowed co-defendants to use her PTIN; evidence showed consistent modus operandi across returns.
- The district court sentenced Mendoza to 96 months imprisonment (upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 for leadership and substantial uncharged conduct); Mendoza appealed challenging sufficiency, new trial denial, failure to sever, upward departure, and ineffective assistance at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (count 1) | Mendoza: No direct testimony of an agreement; insufficiency of circumstantial proof | Government: Agreement can be inferred from concerted action, control, common methods, Mendoza’s admissions | Guilty upheld — circumstantial evidence (leadership, common methods, admissions) sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantive counts (counts 2,3,5,6,7) | Mendoza: Government failed to prove willfulness for each return | Government: Admissions + taxpayer testimony showing false/inflated items and pattern support willfulness | Counts 2,5,7 affirmed for willfulness; counts 3 and 6 vacated for insufficiency |
| Failure to sever trials sua sponte | Mendoza: Joint trial prejudiced her by conflating co-defendants’ culpability | Government: Joinder proper in conspiracy cases; jury instructions and other evidence cured prejudice | No plain error — failure to sua sponte sever not reversible |
| Above-guideline upward departure (sentence) | Mendoza: Departure double-counted leadership and relied on unproven/ accounted conduct | Government: Departure justified by additional uncharged conduct, recruitment/control, and intangible harms | Affirmed — upward departure under §5K2.21 supported by facts and not plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial proof of conspiracy and willfulness in tax-preparer scheme)
- United States v. Morrison, 833 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2016) (elements for conspiracy and standards for willfulness under §7206(2))
- United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2007) (agreement to conspire may be inferred from concert of action)
- United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456 (5th Cir. 1993) (joined defendants presumptively tried together; prejudice must be compelling to require severance)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved claims)
- United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2005) (district court may rely on Presentence Report and uncharged conduct for upward departures)