United States of America v. Yolanda Medina Poz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4484
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YOLANDA MEDINA POZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00830-HMH-2)
Submitted: November 22, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Medina Poz appeals her forty-six month
sentence following her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit tax
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006) and mail fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011). We affirm.
Poz first argues that the district court erred in
applying a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1 (2010). Pursuant to USSG
§ 3B1.1(a), a four-level enhancement may be imposed if “the
defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that
involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive[.]” A district court need only find the facts
supporting a § 3B1.1(a) enhancement by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238
(4th Cir. 1989). In reviewing the district court’s calculations
under the Guidelines, this court “review[s] the district court’s
legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether
to apply an enhancement based on a defendant’s role in the
offense is a factual determination reviewed on appeal for clear
error. United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir.
2009).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
There is evidence that Poz maintained thorough records
of the fraudulent activity, advised other participants, arranged
the collection of paperwork and distribution of fraudulent
returns, and received a monetary benefit from each transaction.
Further, there is evidence that the scheme involved a
substantial amount of tax fraud. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in its finding.
Poz also argues that the district court misapplied the
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and that the
court failed to sufficiently explain the reasons for its
selected sentence. Because the issue was preserved on appeal,
review in this court is for harmless error. United States v.
Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court
explained its reasons for selecting a sentence at the high end
of the Guidelines range by discussing the degree, scope, and
nature of Poz’s conduct. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must make an
“individualized assessment” based on the facts of the case,
though that assessment need not be lengthy or elaborate). We
conclude that the district court adequately stated its grounds
for the within-Guidelines sentence and therefore did not err.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 3 of 4 --

4
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --