United States of America v. Jayrece Elaine Turnbull

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4320
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAYRECE ELAINE TURNBULL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00137-AW-1)
Submitted: June 14, 2010 Decided: July 2, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jonathan C. Su, Deborah A.
Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 8 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jayrece Turnbull appeals her sentence of 108 months
imprisonment, contending that the district court clearly erred
in attributing a loss of more than $20 million to her for her
role in a fraudulent property-tax refund scheme. Because the
district court did not clearly err in making this finding, we
affirm.
I.
Jayrece Turnbull pled guilty to mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2010), possession of
stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315 (2006),
conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)
(2006), and tax evasion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7201
(2006), for her part in a wide-ranging conspiracy that defrauded
nearly $50 million from the government of the District of
Columbia (“the District”).
The scheme was started in 1989 by Turnbull’s aunt,
Harriette Walters, an employee of the District. Walters issued
fraudulent property tax refunds supported by false paperwork,
and used numerous co-conspirators in her scheme. In 2001,
Walters recruited Turnbull into the conspiracy. Walters
explained the scheme to Turnbull, and told her to deal only with
a bank employee of Walters’s choosing when depositing the checks

-- 2 of 8 --

3
from the District, to leave the money in the account for more
than thirty days, and to withdraw money in amounts of less than
$5000. In February 2001, the first check, worth $131,571.33,
was deposited into one of Turnbull’s accounts. At the time of
her arrest, Turnbull had twenty-six bank accounts that handled
fraudulent deposits totaling $24,521,720.66. Turnbull had
written checks totaling $225,000 to a bank official involved in
the scheme, and had cashed checks payable to herself totaling
$1,131,813.20.
At sentencing, the Government argued that Turnbull was
responsible for $24 million in loss, the amount deposited in her
twenty-six bank accounts. Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(a)(1), (b)(1)(L), a loss of more than
$20 million resulted in a twenty-two level increase to
Turnbull's base offense level of six. Turnbull argued that she
was not aware of the full scope of her aunt’s scheme and that
she was responsible for no more than $7 million to $20 million
in loss, for a twenty level offense increase. See USSG
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). The district court ultimately accepted the
Government’s position, concluding that Turnbull was responsible
for the $24,521,720.66 in loss and, accordingly, added twenty-
two levels to her base offense level. The district court found
that, regarding the conspiracy, “[w]hile we can’t pinpoint what
Ms. Turnbull specifically knew, we know generally from the

-- 3 of 8 --

4
evidence that’s been presented here that she had a general
understanding of what was going on.” The district court noted
that Turnbull entered the scheme in 2001, and controlled twenty-
six bank accounts that had 82 checks worth more than $24 million
in deposits. The district court found that Walters, and not
Turnbull, was the mastermind and that the co-conspirators were
“depositing and writing checks off each other’s accounts.”
Nonetheless, the district court explained that it was “actually
convinced . . . that everyone knew exactly what was going on and
. . . knew the scope of this conspiracy.” The district court
stated it was “clear” that “they all were cohorts. They all had
understandings. There was a modus operandi.” Specifically as
to Turnbull, the district court reiterated that most of the
checks were signed by Turnbull, that the bank statements were at
her house, and that this evidence regarding the nature of her
involvement “authorizes this court to find a clear inference of
not just general knowledge but specific knowledge as to what was
going on.”
With the twenty-two level increase, and taking into
account other enhancements, Turnbull’s total offense level was
thirty with a criminal history category of I, yielding an
advisory guidelines range of 97-121 months. Absent the extra
two levels for the loss adjustment, her advisory guidelines

-- 4 of 8 --

5
range would have been 78-97 months. The district court
ultimately sentenced Turnbull to 108 months imprisonment.
Turnbull filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
On appeal, Turnbull challenges only the amount of loss
attributed to her. Under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007), sentences are reviewed for procedural and substantive
reasonableness. When considering the reasonableness of a
sentence, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual
findings, such as loss calculations, for clear error. United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir. 2008); see also
United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (“In
reviewing loss calculation, we review de novo the district
court’s interpretation of what constitutes ‘loss,’ while
accepting the calculation of loss absent clear error.”). The
Government must establish the amount of loss by preponderance of
the evidence, and “the loss need not be determined with
precision. The court need only make a reasonable estimate of
the loss, given the available information.” United States v.
Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Pursuant to USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), a co-conspirator is
liable for “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of

-- 5 of 8 --

6
others in furtherance of [a] jointly undertaken criminal
activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of
conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of
attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that
offense.” The Application Notes for the Guideline explain that:
In determining the scope of the criminal activity that
the particular defendant agreed to jointly undertake
(i.e., the scope of the specific conduct and
objectives embraced by the defendant's agreement), the
court may consider any explicit agreement or implicit
agreement fairly inferred from the conduct of the
defendant and others.
USSG § 1B1.3, cmt. n.2.
On appeal, Turnbull argues that the district court
failed to make any factual findings in support of its loss
calculation and clearly erred in finding that Turnbull was
responsible for all of the money deposited in her accounts
because other co-conspirators, including Walters, had access to
the accounts and the Government could not prove that Turnbull
had signed all of the deposited checks.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in attributing more than $20 million in loss to Turnbull.
First, contrary to Turnbull’s suggestion, the district court did
make factual findings regarding Turnbull’s role in the offense
and what acts were reasonably foreseeable to her. In addition,
the Application Notes specify that the district court was
permitted to infer the extent of Turnbull’s involvement from the

-- 6 of 8 --

7
surrounding facts. To that end, the Government’s evidence that
Turnbull was depositing a $410,000 check when her illicit
activities first came to light, lied to investigators, gave a
co-conspirator $225,000, and spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars on luxury goods permitted the inference that Turnbull
was aware of the vast scope of the conspiracy. Turnbull argues
that the Government cannot actually attribute the $24 million to
her, but her argument misapprehends the “reasonably foreseeable”
standard. Even assuming Turnbull did not have actual knowledge
of the $24 million in her accounts, given the amount of money
she was spending and depositing, and the length of time she
spent in the conspiracy, it was reasonably foreseeable that the
fraud involved more than $20 million. In addition, Turnbull
does not dispute that she was the holder of these bank accounts
or that the bank statements were all mailed to her address. As
the Government notes, Turnbull never contacted the bank
regarding any unauthorized access of her accounts, and at the
time of her arrest, Turnbull claimed that she was the only
person with access to the accounts.
In sum, Turnbull’s lengthy and extensive involvement
in the scheme permitted the inference that Turnbull was
specifically aware of its scope and that the amount of the fraud
was reasonably foreseeable to her. Accordingly, the district

-- 7 of 8 --

8
court did not clearly err in attributing more than $20 million
in loss to her.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Turnbull’s
sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 8 of 8 --