United States v. Ramona Johnson
841 F.3d 299
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ramona Johnson, a tax preparer, and her daughter-in-law Nekia Everson prepared fraudulent individual tax returns (2008–2014), falsifying Schedule C, Schedule A, and dependents to claim EITC refunds.
- After an IRS investigation, they were indicted on multiple counts; the government initially sought a jury-waiver arrangement tied to reducing counts, which the district court denied as potentially coercive; defendants later waived jury and had a bench trial.
- At bench trial Johnson and Everson were convicted of conspiracy and multiple counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206; Johnson received 170 months, Everson 95 months; court ordered restitution of ~$14.78 million.
- The PSR adopted the IRS agent’s extrapolation to estimate tax loss: from 13,429 returns, agent sampled 41 RAR returns, found a 72.2% falsity rate, applied it to the adjusted pool to reach a $25,201,861 tax-loss estimate driving Guidelines levels.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (1) district court abused discretion in denying the government’s initial jury-waiver request and (2) the tax-loss calculation was clearly erroneous and they lacked sufficient time to review non-sample returns (latter raised for first time on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court denial of government’s initial jury-waiver motion | Johnson/Everson: denial was improper and prejudiced them because later superseding indictment increased counts | Gov’t: waiver request was instigated by defendants; court properly scrutinized potential coercion and ensured waiver later was voluntary | Court: no abuse of discretion; comments about coercion were permissible; defendants later waived knowingly; convictions affirmed |
| Sufficiency/representativeness of sample for tax-loss extrapolation | Johnson/Everson: 41-return sample derived from audit-flagged RARs (many were charged) was nonrandom and inflated falsity rate; offered evidence of 82 unaffected clients | Gov’t: agent’s extrapolation was a reasonable estimate consistent with prior precedent and available facts | Court: calculation not clearly erroneous; defendants failed to rebut estimate or offer alternative; adoption of agent’s method affirmed |
| Standard of review for tax-loss calculation | Johnson/Everson: N/A (argue error) | N/A | Court: tax-loss reviewed for clear error; defendants bore burden to contradict agent’s reasonable estimate; clear error not shown |
| Insufficient time to inspect non-sample returns (raised on appeal) | Johnson/Everson: two months between PSR and sentencing was insufficient compared to other cases | Gov’t: defendants had a continuance and did not seek more time; no showing of prejudice | Court: plain-error review fails—no showing of inability to prepare defense or prejudice; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (court may place conditions on granting jury-waiver; no constitutional impediment to conditions)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct. 1930) (trial-court discretion to approve waiver must be "sound and advised")
- United States v. Clark, 139 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 1998) (tax-loss calculations reviewed for clear error; defendant must rebut agent’s computation)
- United States v. Montgomery, 747 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding agent’s tax-loss calculation despite methodological imperfections)
- United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2010) (criticized use of only audit-flagged returns for extrapolation though error held harmless)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plain-error standard requires clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)