United States v. Sheryl Lagrone, 743 F.3d 122

Sheryl Lagrone tendered checks with insufficient funds to purchase postal stamps at multiple post offices; two counts involved $880 each. A third count was dismissed.
She pleaded guilty to two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 641 but reserved dispute over applicable penalties (whether one felony or two felonies).
The Government argued each theft count could carry felony penalties (up to 10 years each) so long as the aggregate of counts in the case exceeded $1,000; Lagrone argued that only a single felony could be charged because neither theft alone exceeded $1,000 and the statute permits aggregation only to reach a single felony threshold.
The PSR calculated an advisory Guidelines range; the district court rejected Lagrone’s objection to the second felony count, varied upward, and sentenced her to concurrent 45-month terms and ordered restitution and two $100 special assessments.
On appeal Lagrone challenged the imposition of penalties for two felony convictions under § 641; the Fifth Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.

Issue	Lagrone's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 641 authorizes multiple felony convictions by aggregating several thefts each under $1,000 so long as the total aggregate exceeds $1,000	Aggregation may be used only to reach the $1,000 felony threshold and, where multiple misdemeanor-level thefts together exceed $1,000, the statute permits charging a single felony (or series-based felonies), not separate felony penalties for each individual theft	Each distinct taking is a separate unit of prosecution; if total of all counts charged in the case exceeds $1,000, felony penalties may be imposed on each count, even if individual counts are under $1,000	The court held § 641 does not permit treating each misdemeanor-level taking as a separate felony merely because aggregated charged counts exceed $1,000; Lagrone is subject to only one felony count and must be resentenced.

United States v. Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
United States v. Spurlin, 664 F.3d 954 (5th Cir. 2011) (plain-meaning analysis in statutory interpretation)
Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2013) (court enforces statute’s plain meaning absent absurdity)
United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2010) (each distinct taking is generally a separate violation under § 641)
United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal statutes be construed for the defendant)
United States v. Bradsby, 628 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.) (guidance cited on sentencing/aggregation issues)