United States v. Tamiko Parker
20-4077
| 6th Cir. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- Tamiko Parker was executive director of Collinwood & Nottingham Villages Development Corporation (CNVDC), a charity that received federal funds.
- Parker misappropriated funds (checks, debit/credit charges, cash rent, paycheck manipulation), stealing over $195,000.
- Parker was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a), pled guilty, and the district court calculated Guidelines sentencing.
- Sentencing calculation: base offense level 6 (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(2)); +10 for loss over $150,000 (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)); +2 for misrepresenting she acted on behalf of CNVDC (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)); +2 for abuse of position of trust (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3); −3 for acceptance of responsibility → offense level 17, criminal history II → range 27–33 months; sentenced to 33 months.
- Parker appealed, arguing the § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) enhancement double counted conduct already captured by the base offense level, and that applying both § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and § 3B1.3 also double counted.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the enhancements punished distinct aspects of the offense and did not constitute impermissible double counting (and that the § 2B1.1/§ 3B1.3 challenge was reviewed for plain error and failed).
Issues
| Issue | Parker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) (misrepresentation) double counts conduct already captured by the base offense level for § 666(a) | The base offense level for theft/embezzlement under § 666 already accounts for her misrepresentations, so the § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) enhancement duplicates punishment | § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) penalizes distinct conduct—misrepresenting acting on behalf of the organization—while § 666 targets the theft/embezzlement itself | No double counting; enhancement targets distinct conduct (misrepresentation) separate from the theft itself |
| Whether applying both U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 (abuse of trust) double counts | The two enhancements punish the same underlying misconduct and thus impermissibly overlap | § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) addresses deceptive misrepresentations to beneficiaries; § 3B1.3 addresses exploitation of a position of trust that facilitated concealment—distinct harms and conduct; also Parker failed to preserve this specific objection so review is for plain error | No double counting; enhancements punish different aggravating qualities (deception vs. abuse of trust); plain-error review applied and failed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Simmerman, 850 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2017) (appellate deference to district court factual findings and guideline application)
- United States v. Walters, 775 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 2015) (no double counting when distinct aspects of conduct are punished separately)
- United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2004) (preservation rules for sentencing objections)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2006) (plain-error framework elements)
- United States v. Smith, 516 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirming simultaneous application of misrepresentation and abuse-of-trust enhancements for distinct harms)