United States v. Levy

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

INGRID DINA LEVY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00265-JCC-1)

Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Nathan Lewin, Alyza D. Lewin, LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States
Attorney, Jay V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorney,
Thomas S. Dougherty, Tyler G. Newby, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Ingrid Dina Levy was convicted by a jury of three

counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006),

and four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343

(2006). Levy was sentenced to forty-six months’ imprisonment

and ordered to pay $168,300.77 in restitution. Levy appeals her

convictions and sentence. We affirm Levy’s convictions, but

vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

I.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the Government, see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80

(1942), the facts can be summarized as follows: In 2004, Levy

agreed to serve as the supplier for an online business selling

wholesale women’s fashions run by Ashley Foster. Pursuant to

their agreement, Foster would take orders and collect payments

and Levy would send the merchandise directly to the customer.

In December of 2004, Judson Burdon ordered a number of items

from the website and tendered payment via wire transfer to

Foster. Foster forwarded the payment to Levy, who never sent

the merchandise to Burdon. When Burdon complained to Foster,

Levy advised Foster to make misrepresentations to Burdon,

including inventing the name of a supplier that did not exist.

2
 As a result of incidents similar to this one, Foster

became the target of harassment and complaints from customers in

online fora and eventually shut down the website. Foster and

Levy then decided to start another online business, this time

selling retail women’s fashion clothing. Again, Levy was to be

the supplier of the merchandise and informed Foster that she

would send the items directly to the customers. The evidence at

trial showed that this business also was a failure due to

customer complaints of non-receipt and partial-receipt of

merchandise. Many, if not all, of the customers obtained

refunds from either their credit card companies or from Foster.

As a result of her dealings with Levy, Foster suffered losses

from these businesses.

At and around this same time and in the years

following, Levy set up several online businesses of her own to

sell women’s fashion clothing. In doing so, Levy set up a

mailbox in another state to serve as the address for her

businesses and listed fictitious names on the websites. In

October 2005, Stacy Armstrong ordered a number of items from one

of Levy’s websites. Armstrong tendered payment by check. Levy

never completed Armstrong’s order and instead sent a

significantly smaller number of non-conforming goods while

promising a refund for the undelivered portion of the order.

Levy, however, never provided a refund to Armstrong.

3
 Annamarie Siegler also placed an order on one of

Levy’s websites and transferred payment into Levy’s account.

Siegler never received her merchandise, despite assurances by

Levy that it had been sent. In retaliation, Siegler placed the

same order repeatedly on Levy’s site, costing Levy a transaction

fee each time. In response to this, Levy drafted a fraudulent

summons and complaint purporting to be official court documents

filed in state court in California and sent them to Siegler.

Levy used a fictitious law firm name that she previously had

used in drafting letters to various online fora.

In December 2005, Special Agent Ryman of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) placed an order from Levy’s site

using an undercover identity. Ryman tendered payment to Levy

and Levy, using a fictitious name, assured Ryman that the

merchandise had been shipped. Levy never sent any of the items

that Ryman ordered. After this incident, FBI agents obtained a

warrant to search Levy’s home. While executing the search

warrant, Ryman and another agent interviewed Levy. Levy

admitted to the agents that she knew what she had been doing was

“criminal” and that the majority of the orders that were placed

on her websites remained unfulfilled.

At trial, the Government introduced three charts

created by Ryman and summarizing records that also had been

introduced. The first was Government Exhibit 45, a bar graph

4
showing a breakdown of Foster’s income and losses from her

ventures with Levy. Ryman testified that this exhibit was based

on Foster’s bank records and Government Exhibit 46, records of

the credit card charge-backs for customers who received refunds

for non-receipt of merchandise. The second was Government

Exhibit 30, a chart listing the names and purported loss amounts

of customers who had complained about Levy’s businesses on an

internet website called the Internet Crime Complaint Center

(“IC3”). The final chart was Government Exhibit 2, a bar graph

depicting the total amount of deposits into, and purchases of

merchandise from, Levy’s account. Ryman testified that he

prepared this chart by reviewing Levy’s bank and credit card

records that previously had been introduced into evidence.

In addition, the Government introduced Exhibit 31, a

collection of emails from Levy’s home computer obtained during

the search of her house. This exhibit contained emails from

disgruntled customers complaining about partial and non-receipt

of merchandise, and Levy’s responses to those customers. The

district court admitted each of these exhibits over Levy’s

objections.

The jury convicted Levy of all seven counts. At

sentencing, the Government produced a chart, again compiled by

Ryman, listing eighty-two victims and $168,300.77 in losses.

Ryman testified that he generated this chart by first compiling

5
a list of victims from the IC3 website, then identifying the

victims’ email addresses from Levy’s computer, and attempting to

contact the victims to verify their complaints. Ryman admitted

that he was only able to speak with fifteen of these victims.

Based on Ryman’s testimony, the district court found by a

preponderance of the evidence that there were at least

eighty-two victims of Levy’s crimes, who suffered $168,300.77 in

losses.

The court therefore enhanced Levy’s offense level

under the Sentencing Guidelines by four levels based on the

number of victims and by ten levels based on the loss figure.

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F),

(b)(2)(B) (2007). Because Levy’s criminal history placed her in

Category I, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was

forty-six to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. After

considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, the district

court sentenced Levy to forty-six months’ imprisonment. The

district court also ordered Levy to pay restitution in the loss

amount pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2006).

II.

Levy first argues that the district court erred in

admitting Government Exhibits 2, 30, 31, 45, and 46 into

evidence. This court reviews a district court’s determination

6
of the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411, 418-19 (4th Cir.

2005). “An abuse of discretion occurs only when a trial court

has acted ‘arbitrarily’ or ‘irrationally’ in admitting evidence,

when a court has failed to consider ‘judicially recognized

factors constraining its exercise’ of discretion, or when it has

relied on ‘erroneous factual or legal premises.’” Id. at 419

(quoting United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir.

1990); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993)). In

addition, “‘[a]ny error in [the] admission or exclusion [of

evidence] is subject to the harmless error test.’” United

States v. Loayza, 107 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting

United States v. Francisco, 35 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1994)).

Government Exhibits 2, 30, and 45 are summary charts

and graphs. Levy objects to their admission on several grounds,

including relevance, lack of advance notice, inaccuracy, and

hearsay, and argues that these charts did not assist the jury

and were unduly prejudicial. “Summary charts are admissible if

they aid the jury in ascertaining the truth.” Loayza, 107 F.3d

at 264 (citing United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1159 (4th

Cir. 1995)). The district court should consider “[t]he

complexity and length of the case as well as the numbers of

witnesses and exhibits” in determining admissibility. Id. In

addition, the court can dispel any prejudice to the defendant in

7
the admission of charts and summaries by giving the defendant

the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who prepared the

exhibits and giving a cautionary instruction to the jury. Id.

Applying these standards, we have reviewed the record and find

no error in the admission of these charts and summaries.

Levy also challenges the court’s admission of

Government Exhibit 46 on the grounds that it contains

inadmissible hearsay and that she received it for the first time

at trial. However, these records were not hearsay but were

admissible as business records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and

902(11). In addition, Levy did not object to the lack of notice

in the district court and therefore waived appellate review of

this claim. See Fed. R. Evid. 103; United States v. Parodi, 703

F.2d 768, 783 (4th Cir. 1983).

Finally, Levy objects to the admission of Government

Exhibit 31 on the ground that the emails from the customers were

hearsay and that their admission was highly prejudicial and

violated the spirit of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth

Amendment and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

However, these emails were not hearsay because they were not

offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, they were

offered to place the admissions by Levy in her response emails

into context and to show Levy’s intent, lack of mistake, and

notice. The district court properly instructed the jury that

8
these emails were not offered for their truth. Therefore, the

admission of this exhibit did not violate the Confrontation

Clause. See id. at 59 n.9 (explaining that Confrontation Clause

does not bar use of testimonial statements for purposes other

than establishing truth of the matter asserted).

III.

Levy next contends that the district court

inadequately instructed the jury on the element of intent to

defraud. “‘The decision to give or not to give a jury

instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’” United

States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463, 474 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting

United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 398 (4th Cir. 2006) (en

banc)). Furthermore, “‘[this court] review[s] a jury

instruction to determine whether, taken as a whole, the

instruction fairly states the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting

Moye, 454 F.3d at 398).

While Levy argues that the district court’s

instruction to the jury was inadequate, Levy fails to specify in

what way the instruction misstated the controlling law. Levy

has thus failed to demonstrate that the district court abused

its discretion in instructing the jury on intent to defraud.

9
 IV.

Levy argues that the district court erroneously

treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. Appellate

courts review a sentence imposed by a district court for

reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). In so

doing, the court “first examines the sentence for significant

procedural errors,” including: “‘failing to calculate (or

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a)

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts,

or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . . .’”

Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473 (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). If

there are no procedural errors, the appellate court then

considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall,

128 S. Ct. at 597.

In sentencing Levy, the district court stated that it

was “bound by these [S]entencing [G]uidelines, except to the

extent that [it could] depart upwards or downwards in any given

case” and expressed that “[it did not] feel that [it could]

depart downwards in this case and [had] to be within the

[G]uideline range.” We agree that the district court treated

the Guidelines as mandatory and therefore vacate the sentence

10
and remand for resentencing. * See Covington v. United States,

129 S. Ct. 1612 (2009) (remanding for resentencing in light of

Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 890 (2009),

because the district court treated Guidelines as mandatory).

V.

Levy next contends that the district court erroneously

increased the applicable advisory Guidelines range based on

unreliable hearsay. Specifically, Levy argues that the

Government failed to provide reliable evidence of the number of

victims of Levy’s scheme and the amount of loss suffered by

those victims. This court reviews a district court’s factual

determination of the amount of loss for clear error. United

States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir. 2003). The court

need only make these determinations by a preponderance of the

evidence and “need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss,

given the available information.” Id. (citing USSG § 2F1.1 cmt.

n.9 (2000)).

Here, Ryman testified to his methods for determining

the victims of Levy’s crimes. Ryman testified that he consulted

the victims listed on the IC3 website and confirmed their status

*
In so doing, we express no opinion on the reasonableness
of the sentence imposed by the district court.

11
as customers by searching through the email addresses found on

Levy’s computer. We conclude that the district court made a

reasonable estimate of the loss and determination of the number

of victims based on Ryman’s testimony.

VI.

Finally, Levy contends that the district court’s order

of restitution was unlawful because the Mandatory Victims

Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A-3664 (2006), does not

authorize the court to order a defendant to pay restitution to a

person who was not a victim of the offense. Levy argues that

the eighty-two individuals to whom restitution was ordered were

not victims within the Act.

This court reviews a restitution order for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 520 (4th Cir.

1994). Under § 3663A(a) and (c), the district court must order

that the defendant make restitution to the victim of an offense

committed by fraud. The term “victim” is defined in subsection

3663A(a)(2). We conclude the district court did not err in

finding that the eighty-two individuals to whom restitution was

ordered were “victims” as defined by the Act. Therefore, the

district court committed no error in ordering restitution to

those victims.

12
 VII.

In sum, we conclude that the district court committed

no error in its conduct of the trial but erred in treating the

Guidelines as mandatory in sentencing Levy. Accordingly, we

affirm Levy’s convictions, but vacate the sentence and remand

for resentencing. We also deny Levy’s renewed motion for

release pending appeal. 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 in the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

13