United States v. Tirrell Thomas, 933 F.3d 605

Thomas led the Michigan side of a multi-state bank-fraud conspiracy that funneled altered corporate checks into recruited Bank of America customer accounts; losses totaled $214,286.03.
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one count of bank fraud; plea alone would have yielded a Guidelines range of 46–57 months.
During his presentence interview, Thomas lied to the probation officer about his leadership role, recruiting activities, and knowledge of co-conspirator Earl Cobb’s role.
The probation officer recommended denying the § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the Government sought a § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement and presented witness statements and cell‑phone records.
The district court found Thomas’s lies willful and material, applied the § 3C1.1 enhancement, denied the § 3E1.1 reduction, producing an adjusted Guidelines range of 70–87 months, then imposed an above-Guidelines 102‑month sentence under § 3553(a).
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Thomas’s challenges to the obstruction enhancement, denial of acceptance credit, and the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance.

Issue	Thomas’s Argument	United States’ Argument	Held
Whether § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement was proper	Lies were immaterial because they would not have changed Guidelines calculations; thus no obstruction	Lies to probation officer about role were willful and, if believed, could influence sentencing; obstruction applies	Enhancement affirmed: lies were willful and material and could affect sentencing
Whether § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction should apply	Pleaded guilty, timely and later acknowledged responsibility; thus deserves reduction	False denials to probation officer show lack of acceptance; reduction properly denied	Reduction denied: lies inconsistent with acceptance; no extraordinary circumstances to allow both adjustments
Standard of review for applying § 3C1.1/§ 3E1.1	(argues errors warrant de novo review)	(Government relies on district court’s factual findings)	Court notes circuit tension over de novo vs. deferential review but affirms result even under de novo, leaving the doctrinal question unresolved
Whether 102‑month above-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable	Variance double‑counts lies already accounted for in Guidelines and creates disparity with co-defendants	District court reasonably weighed § 3553(a) factors (recidivism, leadership role, deterrence, pattern of dishonesty)	Variance affirmed as not an abuse of discretion; 15‑month variance supported by § 3553(a) factors

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, 138 S. Ct. 960 (2018) (standard-of-review guidance for mixed questions of law and fact)
Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018) (broad scope of the words "obstruct or impede")
Sweet v. United States, 630 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2011) (material false statements to probation officer to obtain lighter sentence support § 3C1.1)
Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (deference to district court application of Guidelines where district court superior on fact-intensive determinations)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review and deference to district court sentencing decisions)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory Guidelines framework affecting § 3742(e) analysis)