United States v. Saundra White
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4170
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Saundra White, a disbarred former attorney, was retained as guardian/attorney for incapacitated Christal Millner and used that relationship to impersonate Millner, create a fictitious entity (Intel Realty Financial Services, IRFS), open accounts and P.O. boxes, and send fraudulent IRS-like tax notices that induced Millner’s guardian (Pamela Hiler) to send about $800,000 to IRFS.
- Law enforcement obtained a warrant to search White’s home and office based on an affidavit by a Treasury Special Agent describing the scheme and stating Hiler had discussed the case with White at her home and knew White maintained a home office. The search yielded documentary evidence linking White to the fraud.
- White was indicted on mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft; she was convicted on all counts after trial.
- At trial Hiler testified she did not have formal business meetings at White’s home and only discussed matters "in passing," prompting White to request a Franks hearing to challenge the affidavit’s veracity; the district court denied the hearing.
- At sentencing the court imposed two Guidelines enhancements: +2 for misrepresenting a government agency (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(9)(A)) and +2 for sophisticated means (§2B1.1(b)(10)(C)), rejected a mental-health–based downward departure after crediting the government’s expert, and sentenced White to 108 months on Counts 1–6 plus a mandatory consecutive 24 months on Count 7 (total 132 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White was entitled to a Franks hearing challenging the affidavit supporting the search warrant | White argued Hiler’s trial testimony contradicted the affidavit (no business discussions at White’s home), so the affidavit contained false statements and a hearing was required | Government argued the Franks claim was untimely if not raised pretrial and, on the merits, Hiler’s testimony did not show intentional or reckless falsehoods necessary for Franks | Court: No Franks hearing required — Hiler’s testimony did not contradict agent’s statements materially and White failed to make the necessary substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless falsehoods (de novo review of legal determination) |
| Whether a two‑level enhancement for misrepresenting a government agency was proper | White argued she never directly claimed to be an IRS agent and the notices and voicemail do not show an affirmative, personal misrepresentation sufficient to trigger the enhancement | Government relied on the fraudulent IRS-like notices and a voicemail from a number tied to White, and on relevant conduct principles to attribute the call to White or her agents | Court: Enhancement affirmed — §2B1.1(b)(9)(A) covers misrepresentations involving a government agency even if passive or indirect; evidence supported attribution to White |
| Whether a two‑level sophisticated‑means enhancement was proper | White contended aspects of the scheme were clumsy and did not amount to "sophisticated" conduct warranting the enhancement | Government pointed to the multifaceted, multi‑year plan: forged IDs, fictitious entity, multiple bank accounts and P.O. boxes, doctored tax notices, and concealed transfers | Court: Enhancement affirmed — totality of scheme was especially intricate (use of fictitious entity, multiple accounts, fabricated official documents) and factual finding reviewed for clear error |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a downward departure based on White’s psychological diagnosis | White argued her mental condition warranted a reduced sentence | Government proffered a court‑ordered psychiatric evaluation that undermined White’s treating expert; district court credited government expert | Court: No abuse of discretion — district court reasonably weighed competing experts and imposed a within‑Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (sets requirements for a defendant to obtain a hearing challenging affidavit veracity)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2011) (standards for reviewing suppression and Franks-related rulings)
- United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (analysis of sophisticated‑means enhancement and burden of proof on sophistication)