United States of America v. Lori Webb Knudsen

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORI WEBB KNUDSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 12-30258
12-30331
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00004-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN LLOYD KNUDSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
OCT 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
Case: 12-30258 10/02/2013 ID: 8806176 DktEntry: 22-1 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Steven
Knudsen’s request for oral argument is denied.
12-30258 & 12-30331 2
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In these appeals, Lori Webb Knudsen (“Lori”) appeals from the 27-month
sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to commit
bank and fraud bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344. Steven
Lloyd Knudsen (“Steven”) appeals from the 35-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for conversion of secured property and Federal
Agricultural Loan Guarantee fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 658 and
1001(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and in both appeals we
affirm.
Lori contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a
mitigating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The record reflects
that the court properly compared Lori’s conduct to Steven’s conduct in assessing
whether to grant the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269,
1283 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Lori failed to prove that she was substantially less
culpable than Steven, the district court did not clearly err by denying the
adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); Cantrell, 433 F.3d at 1282-83.
Case: 12-30258 10/02/2013 ID: 8806176 DktEntry: 22-1 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

12-30258 & 12-30331 3
Steven contends that the district court erred when it applied a two-level
aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). He argues that the court
erred by relying on his admission at the change of plea hearing that he was
responsible for the offense, and claims that the record does not otherwise support
the enhancement. Contrary to Steven’s contention, the record reflects that Lori
acted at his direction. Accordingly, the court did not clearly err by applying the
adjustment. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000).
Lori and Steven also contend that their respective sentences are
substantively unreasonable in light of their background, lack of criminal history,
low risk for recidivism, and their inability to pay restitution while incarcerated.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentences. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentences imposed were within the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and are substantively reasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances.
See id.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-30258 10/02/2013 ID: 8806176 DktEntry: 22-1 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --