United States v. Sarah Godsey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18620
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Godsey pleaded guilty to bank fraud, access-device fraud, and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1029(a)(5), 1028A(a)(1).
- District court sentenced Godsey to 54 months’ imprisonment and denied adjustments requested by Godsey.
- She embezzled from KBK Inc. by forging checks and making unauthorized electronic transfers from 2005 to 2007.
- She concealed the fraud by transferring funds from other KBK credit card accounts and by mailing altered KBK statements.
- She opened credit cards in a supervisor’s name, linked them to PayPal, used them for personal purchases, and used the proceeds to cover embezzlement.
- After discovery, Godsey provided false explanations, forged PayPal documents, and lied to an FBI agent; she pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement; the district court applied a two-level increase for abuse of trust and denied a § 3E1.1 adjustment, with a two-year consecutive term for aggravated identity theft and a total 54-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Application Note 2(B) independently supports § 3B1.3 | Godsey—Note 2(B) requires abuse of authority; Note 1 not required | Government—Note 2(B) applies notwithstanding Note 1 | Yes, Note 2(B) provides an independent basis for § 3B1.3 |
| Whether denial of acceptance of responsibility was clear error | Godsey admitted guilt and showed remorse | Obstruction adjustment negates acceptance | No clear error; denial affirmed due to substantial obstruction and timing |
| Whether district court abused § 3553(a) by denying a downward variance | Family obligations, mental health, and lack of criminal history merit variance | Court properly weighed factors and considered arguments | No abuse of discretion; sentence within advisory range and adequately explained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hagen, 641 F.3d 268 (8th Cir. 2011) (procedural error in guideline calculation reviewed de novo; guidelines interpretation)
- United States v. Bates, 548 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir. 2009) (guidelines interpretation and deference to district court findings)
- United States v. Miell, 661 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2011) (requires showing position of trust and use to facilitate offense)
- United States v. Stoltenberg, 309 F.3d 499 (8th Cir. 2002) (factors for acceptance of responsibility considerations in presence of obstruction)
- United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (extraordinary cases for acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 2010) (Note 2(B) independence from Note 1 (guidelines interpretation))
- United States v. Davis, 668 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2012) (statutory and guideline interpretation)
- United States v. Hackman, 630 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2011) (guideline interpretation and application notes)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (substantive reasonableness review standard)
- United States v. Roth, — (—) ((illustrative placeholder if cited))