United States of America v. Sheryl Sewell

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0251n.06
Filed: April 1, 2009
No. 08-5162
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHERYL SEWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: MERRITT, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this direct criminal appeal submitted on the briefs, the
defendant, Ms. Sewell, a bank employee who pled guilty to one count of embezzling approximately
$330,000 from her bank employer, appeals her Guideline sentence of 27 months. The defendant’s
basic argument on appeal is that she made restitution promptly and that her sentence should be less
than someone who had not made restitution at the time of sentencing. She phrases her argument in
her brief as follows: “Without a variance in this case, there exists a disparity between Ms. Sewell and
other defendants who make no effort to repay, no effort to rehabilitate themselves, no effort to return
the victims to wholeness.” The defendants adds that “the district court decided not to give Ms.
Sewell credit for her aberrant behavior and remorse due to the advantages in life she possessed. The

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-5162
United States v. Sewell
-2-
district court felt that a person should not get a lesser sentence because they had a position of trust
and better circumstances when, in fact, Ms. Sewell asked for a lesser sentence based upon her
repayment of stolen funds, remorse and self-rehabilitation.” (App. brief, p. 12.)
Based upon our review of the facts of the case, the pre-sentence report and the sentencing
hearing, we can only conclude that the district court took into account all of the relevant facts
concerning both the offense characteristics and the characteristics and circumstances of the offender
— facts that were undisputed and admitted. We conclude that the district court was well within its
discretion. Counsel for the defendant did not argue at the sentencing hearing for a probationary
sentence but rather briefly argued “that we’d asked the court to consider a lesser term of
incarceration because the thing that we are arguing is sufficient, but not really necessary, and that
27 months we believe is greater than necessary to teach Ms. Sewell a lesson or to deter other
individuals . . . .”
The District Court obviously thought, however, that the two-year sentence was necessary to
deter other bank embezzlement offenses and was commensurate with the seriousness of the offense.
Although other judges may have given a different sentence, this sentence does not fall outside the
range of reason.
Finding no basis or persuasive argument for disturbing the sentence imposed by the district
court, accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --