United States v. Sabrina Carmichael
676 F. App'x 402
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- From Aug 2010–Sep 2012 defendants participated in an international conspiracy to sell nonexistent vehicles online, receive buyer payments into fraudulent U.S. accounts, drain funds and wire proceeds overseas.
- Garner and Holley were arrested Sept 15, 2012; Carmichael arrested three months later. All pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349).
- District court held evidentiary loss hearings; a ledger (Apr–Sep 2012) showed $1,301,132.31 and separate verified transactions outside that period showed $1,233,385.70.
- Court combined both sums, divided by total conspiracy days to compute a daily loss of $3,370.37, then attributed loss to each defendant by multiplying the daily rate by each defendant’s days of participation (plus certain wire additions).
- Sentences: Carmichael 60 months, Holley 36 months, Garner 240 months (statutory max though Guidelines range exceeded statutory max). District court ordered joint-and-several restitution of $1,807,517.06.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation methodology (Garner & Carmichael) | Gov used ledger extrapolation; defendants say it is speculative and overestimates loss | Defendants argued ledger period not representative and proffered alternate, lower verified-only calculation | Court’s blended-extrapolation was a reasonable estimate supported by preponderance of evidence; affirmed (clear-error review of facts, de novo review of method) |
| Individual attribution of loss / foreseeability | Garner: no causal link between his acts and daily average loss; Carmichael: credited for too many days | Both argued liability should be limited to specific verified transactions or ledger entries | Court found scope of agreement and foreseeability supported attributing average daily loss during each defendant’s participation; affirmed |
| Waiver of counsel at sentencing (Garner) | Garner: court failed to conduct the McDowell/Bench Book model inquiry; waiver not shown knowing/voluntary | Gov: court substantially covered relevant considerations; defendant was informed and competent | Waiver was knowing and voluntary. Court’s colloquy addressed relevant factors; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Procedural & substantive reasonableness of Garner’s sentence | Garner: court failed to consider §3553(a) factors, sentence disproportionate compared to coconspirators and other cases | Gov: court discussed §3553 factors, considered his leadership role and criminal history; Guidelines range exceeded statutory max so imposed statutory max | Procedurally reasonable (plain-error review; record shows consideration of §3553 factors). Substantively reasonable; sentence below calculated Guidelines range and not arbitrary |
| Restitution amount (Carmichael & Holley) | Defendants: government failed to link summary chart entries to supporting evidence with sufficient particularity | Gov: Agent testified about chart preparation and underlying investigation; supporting docs provided pre-hearing | Court did not abuse discretion in adopting the summary charts supported by testimony and documentation; joint-and-several restitution upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) (district court may reasonably estimate loss when exact calculation is infeasible)
- United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (government bears preponderance burden for loss amount; judicial factfinding permitted)
- United States v. Stoian, 73 F. Supp. 3d 830 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (discussion of ledger-based extrapolation and evidentiary limits)
- United States v. Bryant, 128 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1997) (extrapolation from known data permissible for loss estimation)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (waiver of counsel must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- United States v. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1987) (model inquiry under supervisory power for Faretta waivers)
- United States v. Bankston, 820 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2016) (model inquiry need not be literal; focus on relevant considerations)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review requires record showing court considered parties’ arguments and had reasoned basis)
- United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016) (summary charts may support restitution when corroborated by testimony and documentation)