United States v. Williams-Ogletree
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8914
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Leslie Williams-Ogletree operated LKJ Tax Services and obtained an IRS EFIN to file electronic tax returns and RAL checks.
- In 2006 she filed 200 fraudulent 2005 tax returns seeking $834,548 in refunds (actual loss $652,730); she received about $62,203 in preparation fees and $28,000 in cash deposits that year.
- Co-conspirators Robtrel and Larryl White recruited taxpayer data and also obtained other EFINs; Robtrel continued the scheme into 2007 using PJH Financial’s EFIN.
- Ogletree was indicted for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 286) and five counts of presenting false claims (18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 2); she was convicted on all counts after trial.
- At sentencing the district court attributed 68 additional fraudulent returns in early 2007 (intended loss $253,073) to Ogletree based on Robtrel’s plea agreement, a tax log recovered from Robtrel’s home, and the PSR.
- The court calculated intended loss over $1,000,000 (U.S.S.G. § 2T4.1), set the guideline range at 51–63 months, and imposed a 51‑month sentence; Ogletree appealed the loss calculation and substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ogletree) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation: whether court erred in attributing 2007 filings to Ogletree | Ogletree denied filing returns under PJH EFIN in 2007; challenged reliability of Robtrel's statements and the tax log | Court relied on Robtrel's plea, the January 4, 2007 PJH returns matching 2006 identifying information, and a tax log seized from Robtrel | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err in attributing 68 returns ($253,073) to Ogletree, making intended loss > $1,000,000 |
| Substantive reasonableness of 51‑month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 | Sentence failed to adequately weigh family caregiving responsibilities and lower actual loss/role relative to co‑conspirators | Court considered role, timing (largest loss period), EFIN/control over filings, granted delayed surrender; within‑guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; family hardship not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant below‑guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavin, 316 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2002) (guideline base offense level depends on intended tax loss)
- United States v. Collins, 685 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for district court’s loss determination: clear error)
- United States v. Al‑Shahin, 474 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2007) (defendant must show calculation was outside permissible computations to establish clear error)
- United States v. Johnson, 489 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2007) (testimony of self‑interested co‑conspirators can support factual findings)
- United States v. White, 639 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011) (district court may rely on unauthenticated documents at sentencing if they bear indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Heckel, 570 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court may rely on reliable PSR information)
- United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir. 1994) (government need not present further proof where defendant offers only a bare denial of PSR facts)
- United States v. Dachman, 743 F.3d 254 (7th Cir. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness; presumption of reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008) (extraordinary family hardship can warrant resentencing)