U.S. v. Daniels, 97-9251
| Decision Date | 04 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-9251,97-9251 |
| Citation | 148 F.3d 1260 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1693 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Dean DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Clark Coleman Adams, Jr., Hagler, Hyles, Adams & McKenna, Columbus, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
James L. Wiggins, U.S. Atty., George F. Peterman, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Senior Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to a guilty plea, Billy Dean Daniels was convicted on one count of embezzling from an employee-benefit plan, 18 U.S.C. § 664, and four counts of making false statements on loan applications, 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He appeals his concurrent 24-month sentences.
Daniels raises two arguments on appeal: (1) no evidence supported the district court's imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) for more than minimal planning; and (2) the district court should have reduced the amount of loss by the amount reimbursed by his insurance carrier.
We review for clear error the district court's determination that an offense involved more than minimal planning. See United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (1993). The same standard of review applies to the district court's amount-of-loss determination. See United States v. Norris, 50 F.3d 959, 960 (11th Cir.1995).
We have reviewed the plea agreement, the presentence investigation report, the sentencing transcript, and other relevant portions of the record. Having considered those, together with the briefs of the parties, we find no reversible error.
The undisputed facts here showed that Daniels operated "Benefits of Columbus, Inc." (BCI), a company that administered self-funded health benefit plans for employers. From July 1988 to April or May 1993, Brooks Auto Parts, Inc., (Brooks) paid BCI monthly installments to cover employee claims and administrative costs. Daniels was to have placed any excess monies in a trust account for Brooks, but he never did so. Checks issued on behalf of the Brooks health plan began to bounce in the spring of 1993. Ultimately, Daniels converted for his own use $295,359.90 that was to have been used for the Brooks health plan. This conduct formed the basis of Daniels' embezzlement conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 664.
Daniels also fraudulently acquired two bank loans. He received $15,084 to purchase a horse trailer, pledging the trailer as collateral. In breach of the loan agreement, Daniels sold the horse trailer, used a portion of the proceeds to pay an insurance company, and pocketed the remainder. Thereafter, Daniels wrote a letter to the bank denying that he had sold the trailer. Daniels' second fraudulent loan, in the amount of $89,098, was supposed to be used to purchase a computer, with the computer as collateral. He actually used these loan proceeds to pay toward a pre-existing debt with a computer company and to pay insurance premiums. Daniels submitted to the bank a forged letter, purportedly from the computer company, indicating that he had ordered a computer, when in fact, he had not. These acts resulted in Daniels' convictions for making false statements on loan applications.
Given this factual foundation, Daniels warranted the more-than-minimal-planning enhancement. His embezzlement of funds from the Brooks health plan occurred over a period of nearly five years, and constituted "repeated acts over a period of time" that were not merely opportune. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(f)); cf. Mullins, 996 F.2d at 1171 (). Further, Daniels' submission of falsified and forged letters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin, No. CV-08-267-B-W.
-
U.S. v. Renick, 00-13536
...2001). These standards of review apply to both minimal planning determinations and loss determinations. See United States v. Daniels, 148 F.3d 1260, 1261 (11th Cir. More Than Minimal Planning While emphasizing that he still maintained that the defendants were not guilty of anything, and at ......
-
U.S.A. v. Alegria
...insurance company), so it is irrelevant in calculating the amount of loss for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Daniels, 148 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We need go no further.10 There is no question but that the appellant engaged in willful misconduct. The mere fa......
-
USA v. Mancini, 10-1178.
...192 F.3d 179, 191 (1st Cir.1999); see also United States v. Castellano, 349 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir.2003); United States v. Daniels, 148 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). The approach taken by these courts and followed below is consistent with the guidelines, which define a “vict......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - William M. Droze and Andrea L. Siedlecki
...132 F.3d 1387, 1390 (11th Cir. 1998). 156. United States v. Gilliard, 133 F.3d 809, 815 (11th Cir. 1998). 157. United States v. Daniels, 148 F.3d 1260, 1261 (11th Cir. 1998). 158. Id. at 1261. 159. Roberts v. Florida Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 1998). 160. Gianelli Mon......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - James T. Skuthan and Rosemary T. Cakmis
...57. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2)(A). For a definition of more than minimal planning," see U.S.S.G. Sec. IB 1.1 application n.l(F). 58. 148 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 1998). 59. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 643 (West 1976 & Supp. 1998). 60. Id. Sec. 1014 (West Supp. 1998). 61. 148 F.3d at 1261. 62. Id. 63. Id. a......