United States v. Candice Davis
875 F.3d 869
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Candice A. Davis pled guilty to wire fraud, unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft for a scheme (2013–2015) recruiting people to open or provide bank accounts and debit cards; scheme obtained/attempted to obtain over $79,000.
- Plea agreement stipulated scheme involved more than 15 participants and that sophisticated means applied, and agreed to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(10)(C).
- The PSR described ~50 recruited individuals; Davis objected to the PSR’s references to 50 participants and to the timeline (that her conduct began before 2015).
- At sentencing the district court applied a three-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b) (manager/supervisor of criminal activity involving ≥5 participants) and denied a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under §3E1.1.
- District court sentenced Davis to 75 months’ imprisonment; Davis appealed challenging PSR findings, the §3B1.1(b) enhancement, and denial of acceptance credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in overruling Davis’s PSR objections | Davis: PSR wrongly overstated participant count (50+) and improperly attributed pre-2015 conduct to her | Government: evidence (list of 51 individuals, agent testimony, investigative materials) supports PSR; any error was immaterial | Affirmed — court found any error harmless because plea stipulated to 15 participants and to the sophisticated-means enhancement; testimony supported pre-2015 involvement |
| Whether §3B1.1(b) leadership enhancement was proper | Davis: she was not a manager/supervisor and did not direct five or more participants | Government: evidence showed Davis recruited participants, exercised control over at least one participant (B.J.), and organized activity | Affirmed — court credited testimony and applied enhancement; managerial role need only cover control over at least one participant and ≥5 participants existed |
| Whether Davis was entitled to a §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Davis: guilty plea shows acceptance; she sought credit | Government/District Court: Davis denied significant relevant conduct (timeline, recruitment, sophisticated means, participant count) undermining clear acceptance | Affirmed — denial not clearly erroneous; multiple denials of relevant conduct supported withholding reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Atterberry, 775 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (PSR is not evidence and cannot be sole basis for contested material facts)
- United States v. Musa, 830 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard and factors for §3B1.1 enhancements)
- United States v. Mannings, 850 F.3d 404 (8th Cir. 2017) (interpretation of manager/supervisor under §3B1.1)
- United States v. Replogle, 628 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court may consider reliable information with indicia of accuracy at sentencing)
- United States v. Jensen, 834 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction)
- United States v. Mahone, 688 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (denial of §3E1.1 where defendant pled guilty but later denied relevant conduct)