United States v. Darra Shephard
892 F.3d 666
4th Cir.2018Background
- Darra Lee Shephard worked at a Costa Rica telemarketing call center (2007–Feb.2015) that fraudulently told U.S. residents they won sweepstakes but required “refundable insurance fees” sent by wire transfer; victims never received refunds or prizes.
- Shephard pleaded guilty to conspiracy (wire/mail fraud, money laundering), eight counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting, and four counts of money laundering and aiding and abetting; no plea agreement. Sentenced to 96 months and ordered to pay $7,215,695.20 restitution.
- At sentencing the PSR applied: (a) a two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3A1.1(b)(1)) based on the scheme’s practice of “reloading” victims, and (b) an 18-level loss enhancement for >$3,500,000 loss (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)(J)), yielding a Guidelines range later varied downward.
- Shephard objected to both enhancements: argued the record lacked evidence she targeted unusually vulnerable victims or knew of such vulnerability, and that loss was overstated and included transfers outside her active participation period.
- The district court adopted the PSR, concluding reloading showed targeting of vulnerable victims and that Shephard’s admitted participation through Feb. 2015 made the $7,215,695.20 loss attributable to her; this court affirms the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerable-victim enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3A1.1) | Gov't: Repeatedly "reloading" victims shows defendants targeted unusually vulnerable persons; enhancement appropriate. | Shephard: Record lacks individualized findings identifying specific unusually vulnerable victims or her knowledge of their vulnerability. | Affirmed: reloading practice + factual basis and victim statements support enhancement; district court explanation adequate. |
| Loss amount for Guidelines (actual loss) | Gov't: Wire-transfer spreadsheets and Shephard’s factual admissions establish $7,215,695.20 actual loss attributable to conspiracy through Feb. 2015. | Shephard: Amount includes MoneyGram and post-2012 transfers though she stopped working in Dec. 2012; documentation insufficient; she withdrew earlier. | Affirmed: factual admissions cover Feb. 2015; no evidence of affirmative withdrawal; government met preponderance and reasonable-estimate standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review of criminal sentences)
- United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir.) (vulnerable-victim enhancement requires fact-based, individualized findings)
- United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (reloading can support vulnerable-victim enhancement)
- United States v. Jackson, 95 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.) (upholding enhancement where district court made victim-specific vulnerability findings in a reloading scheme)
- United States v. Dupre, 462 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.) (repeated requests for money alone do not automatically satisfy vulnerable-victim enhancement; need specific findings)