United States of America v. Shannon Kathlina Grimm

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHANNON KATHLINA GRIMM,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30312
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00063-RFC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Shannon Kathlina Grimm appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and making false claims, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 287. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-30312 2
Grimm contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for use of sophisticated means.
The record reflects that Grimm researched the identities of deceased taxpayers in
commercial databases and newspapers, paid co-conspirators for the names of
deceased taxpayers, structured the returns to maximize the refund amounts, forged
the signatures of the purported filers, and deposited refund checks in the bank
accounts of third parties to conceal her fraud. Under these circumstances, the
district court did not clearly err by finding that Grimm’s crimes involved
sophisticated means. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.8(B) (“‘[S]ophisticated means’
means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the
execution or concealment of an offense . . . . Conduct such as hiding assets or
transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or
offshore financial accounts . . . ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.”); United
States v. Montano, 250 F.3d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating standard of review).
Moreover, the record belies Grimm’s contention that the district court relied on
disputed facts in imposing the enhancement.
Grimm also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Grimm’s sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Grimm’s within-Guidelines sentence is

-- 2 of 3 --

12-30312 3
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of her offenses and her
prior criminal history. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --