Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
v.
MANIVONE SAIGNAPHONE, a/k/a
Mindy Saignaphone,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
-3-
-5-
sentence was already a relatively short one and advocating incarceration rather
than home detention because her offense resulted in a foreseeable loss of millions
of dollars. While it agreed co-defendant sentences must be considered, it pointed
out Ms. Saignaphones circumstances in the fraud scheme differed from Ms.
Wittakers because of the close familial relationship Ms. Wittaker had with her
father, who operated the scheme, and the fact he was overbearing and
domineering towards her. Rather than a variant sentence, the government
renewed its request for a downward departure resulting in a sixteen-month
sentence with eight months served in incarceration and the other eight months
served during home detention.
Finally, the district court explicitly considered the sentencing factors under
18 U.S.C. 3553(a), noting Ms. Saignaphone had never been convicted of a crime
and possessed fine personal qualities and great family support but that she had
admitted to falsely representing and inducing others with respect to the tax returns
at issue and thereby caused victimization of taxpayers by defrauding the federal
and state governments. The district court then imposed a sentence of eight
months imprisonment and eight months home detention, to be followed by three
years of supervised release and payment of $52,868.65 in restitution. It
determined such a sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy
the sentencing objectives in 3553(a), including for the sentence to reflect the
-8-
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, deter others from
committing the same offense, and provide just punishment.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Ms. Saignaphone does not challenge the procedural component
in the calculation of her sentence but argues her sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court unreasonably discounted the evidence she
proffered to demonstrate her extremely low risk of recidivism. In support, she
contends the district court:
deemed [the] statistical and comparative evidence irrelevant to
whether Ms. Saignaphone, specifically, would reoffend, ignoring
both that statistical evidence is precisely what courts should consider
-9-
-10-
resulting sentence when viewed under the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Id. at
804.
considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its]
own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007). In so doing, [i]t is well established that the sentencing court is entitled
to rely on uncontested facts contained in the [presentence report] for certain
sentencing purposes, including to draw conclusions about the nature of the
offense and history and characteristics of the defendant relevant to the sentencing
factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). United States v. Mateo, 471 F.3d 1162, 1166-67
(10 th Cir. 2006).
Not only did the district court consider those arguments, but it clearly
rejected them. It concluded the record presented in Ms. Saignaphones case did
not support a variant sentence of probation, even if the Guidelines applicable to
her resulted in historical increases in the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission
failed to defer to Congress preference for probationary sentences, or she fell into
a demographic for which there was a low risk of recidivism. This is because it
found Ms. Saignaphones offense of defrauding the government and taxpayers of
$2,300,000 serious and sufficient enough to deny a sentence of home detention,
which it believed would be insufficient punishment for an offense of that
magnitude, regardless of her lack of prior criminal history, chances of recidivism,
or Congress intent regarding probation. Instead, it concluded the sentence
imposed was sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing
objectives in 3553(a), including for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, deter others from committing the same
offense, and provide just punishment. Thus, the district court sufficiently stated
in open court the reasons for its imposition of her sentence under 18 U.S.C.
3553(c), satisfying us it considered the parties arguments and ha[d] a reasoned
-13-
basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita, 551 U.S. at
356.
-14-
3553(a) factors or that the district court otherwise abused its discretion or
imposed an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable sentence.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, we AFFIRM Ms. Saignaphones sentence.
-15-