United States v. Maria Hernandez
876 F.3d 161
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Maria Hernandez (manager) and Hilda Mendoza (assistant manager) at El Paso Federal Credit Union ran a multi-year scheme (2007–2012) issuing as many as 111 unrecorded share certificates and diverting investor funds into hidden accounts.
- They used the credit union’s software and printer to issue dividend checks with magnetic-ink routing numbers; Hernandez also spent funds on personal expenses. The scheme left the credit union insolvent; the NCUA paid ~$18.3 million in claims.
- Both pleaded guilty to bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy; PSRs applied a 20-level loss enhancement (> $7M) to each and a 2-level §2B1.1(b)(11) enhancement for use of an authentication feature (magnetic-ink routing numbers).
- District court sentenced Hernandez to 188 months (bottom of Guidelines 188–235) and Mendoza to 121 months (bottom of Guidelines 121–151, after reductions for acceptance and minor role).
- On consolidated appeal, Hernandez contested the authentication-feature enhancement and the $18,376,542 loss attribution; Mendoza challenged the substantive reasonableness of her within-Guidelines sentence (and argued preservation of her variance request).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2B1.1(b)(11) authentication-feature enhancement applies for using employer equipment to print checks | Hernandez: enhancement intended for those who obtain specialized devices; using routine employer equipment should not trigger it | Government/District Court: plain text covers any "string of numbers" meeting §1028(d)(1); using employer tools to create authentication features is within scope | Enhancement applied; court affirmed (no error) |
| Whether Hernandez may be held responsible for $18,376,542 loss | Hernandez: Lillie audit traced only ~$3.7M directly to her; whole loss attribution is unsupported | Government/District Court: Lillie Report and NCUA liquidation evidence support $18M+ loss; district made reasonable loss estimate after evidentiary hearing | Loss attribution upheld as plausible; 20-level enhancement affirmed |
| Whether Mendoza’s within-Guidelines 121-month sentence is substantively unreasonable under §3553(a) | Mendoza: age, lack of criminal history, family ties, low recidivism risk, and lesser culpability justify a lower sentence | Government/District Court: court considered mitigation and §3553(a) factors and reasonably balanced them | Sentence reasonable; abuse of discretion not shown |
| Whether Mendoza preserved her challenge to substantive reasonableness | Mendoza: requested below-Guidelines variance in writing and at hearing, so claim preserved | Government: no objection after imposition; appellate review may be plain error | Court assumed preservation unnecessary to resolve merits and rejected the claim on substance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and factual findings)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Gordon, 838 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain-text interpretation rule unless absurd result)
- United States v. Sanders, 343 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2003) (loss calculation reviewed for clear error; plausibility standard)
- United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court must make a reasonable estimate of loss)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard when no sentencing objection)
- United States v. Scott, 654 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2011) (deferential review of sentencing; district court best positioned to weigh §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)