United States v. Jones
680 F. App'x 649
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Crystal Lynn Jones, former office manager at Teel’s Used Trucks, pleaded guilty to one count of interstate transportation of stolen funds (18 U.S.C. §2314), admitting embezzling more than $5,000.
- The criminal information alleged conduct “as early as 2008 through 2013” and claimed over $500,000 taken; Jones’s plea admitted only the >$5,000 element, not the $500,000 figure.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) attributed $517,464.91 in losses (many line items dated beginning in 2007); Jones objected to the amount and to inclusion of $35,018.86 in Blue Cross Blue Shield payments.
- At sentencing the government presented testimony from Teel’s office manager (Dana Snelling) supporting the PSR items; the district court excluded the $35,018.86 and $185.26 of clearly authorized reimbursements, adopting a loss/restitution figure of $482,260.79.
- The loss amount drove a 14-level Guidelines increase (§2B1.1(b)(1)(H)), producing an adjusted offense level of 17 and a 24–30 month advisory range; the court sentenced Jones to 27 months and ordered restitution of $482,260.79.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | Government/District Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on loss at sentencing | Court required Jones to disprove PSR amounts; government must prove loss by preponderance | District court applied proper standard and merely summarized evidence and noted Jones could offer rebuttal | No plain error; court did not improperly shift burden; claim fails |
| Whether restitution improperly included embezzled amounts outside the charged temporal window | PSR included line items beginning in 2007; restitution therefore may include losses predating the charged period (from 2008) | No record showing the court actually included 2007 amounts; defendant failed to preserve factual challenge at sentencing | Plain-error review fails—argument speculative and not cognizable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffith, 584 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2009) (government bears burden to prove loss by preponderance)
- United States v. Maldonado-Campos, 920 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1990) (district court explanations may warrant remand if based on incorrect legal standard)
- United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (requirement of contemporaneous objection to preserve procedural errors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural errors include failing to calculate or improperly calculating the Guidelines range)
- United States v. Rosales-Miranda, 755 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Zhou, 717 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2013) (failure to object to restitution at sentencing limits appellate review to plain error)