UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephanie CHEEK, Appellant
Docket: 95-1150
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; October 27, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Stephanie Cheek appealed her sentencing enhancements under federal guidelines following her convictions related to bank fraud and bankruptcy fraud. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court's decision. Cheek's husband had committed bank fraud, and she assisted him in evading creditors by moving, establishing a new identity, and hiding assets. She was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy and making false statements, ultimately pleading guilty to several offenses. The district court sentenced her to concurrent terms of thirty-seven months for each count. Cheek contested the enhancement of her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(3)(B) for abusing the bankruptcy process, arguing that her lies to the bankruptcy court were part of the same conduct that led to her bankruptcy fraud conviction and constituted impermissible double counting. However, the court disagreed, stating that the enhancements reflect a higher level of culpability deserving of greater punishment, as intended by the Sentencing Commission. The court emphasized that the guidelines allow for adjustments based on specific offense characteristics, supporting the enhancement in her case as justifiable. Cheek argued that the district court improperly increased her base offense level under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(b) due to her role in the criminal activity. The court found that evidence from the plea agreement and sentencing testimony indicated Cheek directed actions of family members involved in the crimes. Specific examples include directing her sister to hide her husband’s identity, selecting items for transport, and instructing her son on renting storage lockers for hidden assets. The court concluded that Cheek acted as a manager or supervisor in a scheme involving five or more participants, and found no clear error in this determination. Additionally, Cheek's pro se claim that the Government violated her plea agreement by seeking the role enhancement was rejected, as the agreement did not address role enhancements or guarantee a specific sentence, affirming that the Government fulfilled its obligations. Consequently, Cheek's sentences were affirmed.