F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 16 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-1233
v. (D.C. No. 95-CR-448-03-S)
(D. Colo.)
ELIZABETH MARJORIE ROBERTSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Elizabeth Marjorie Robertson was convicted by a jury of one count of mail
fraud, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2, and one
count of wire fraud, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343
and 2. Ms. Robertson was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on each
count to run concurrently, three years supervised release, and restitution in the
amount of $4,800. Ms. Robertson appeals both her conviction and her sentence.
First, she challenges the adequacy of the jury instruction on the aiding and
abetting charge. Second, Ms. Robertson contends the district court abused its
discretion by enhancing her sentence based on factors already fully considered
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Background
Ms. Robertson and her codefendants, Robert Smith & Richard Clark, 1 were
employed as telephone solicitors by Say No Now, a fraudulent telemarketing
operation. Working on a commission basis, Ms. Robertson and the other
1
Richard Clark ultimately testified against Ms. Robertson and Mr. Smith
under the terms of a plea agreement with the government. Mr. Smith was tried
and convicted of six counts of wire and mail fraud, and aiding and abetting. See
United States v. Smith, ___ F.3d ___ No. 96-1245, 1997 WL 796417 (10th Cir.
Dec. 31, 1997).
-2-
telemarketers would solicit contributions to the organization through unsolicited
telephone calls to potential donors, often targeting elderly individuals, especially
those who had given in the past. Potential donors were told contributions would
be used to keep children off drugs. Ms. Robertson and the other solicitors further
induced potential donors to contribute by telling donors they had been selected to
receive their "fair share" of $75,000 in prizes and awards, and that they would
receive prizes exceeding the value of their contributions. However, while
collecting over $915,000 in donations in the first ten months of 1995, Say No
Now contributed only $45 to charitable causes. Rather than valuable prizes,
donors actually received pencil sets, board games, figurines, and savings bonds in
return.
Discussion
On appeal, Ms. Robertson challenges the adequacy of the jury instruction
on the aiding and abetting charge. 2 She complains the district court's aiding and
2
Defense counsel objected to the following instruction:
In order for you to find the defendant guilty as an aider or
abettor, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant intentionally associated himself or herself with a criminal
venture, that he or she participated in it as something that he or she
wished to bring about, and that he or she sought by his or her action
to make it succeed.
-3-
abetting instruction failed to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of
"participant" and on the required mens rea.
Our standard of review for challenges to jury instructions is "whether the
jury, considering the instructions as a whole, was misled." United States v. Smith,
13 F.3d 1421, 1424 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 513 U.S. 878 (1994). Where, as here,
an objection was made to the instruction at trial, our review is de novo. Id. The
judgment of the district court will be disturbed only where this Court has
"substantial doubt that the jury was fairly guided." United States v. Mullins, 4
F.3d 898, 900 (10th Cir. 1993).
The district court's aiding and abetting instruction adequately clarified the
term "participant" and the requisite intent. The instruction made it clear the
defendant must have "intentionally associated ... herself with a criminal venture."
The instruction further required that the defendant "wished to bring about" the
criminal venture and "sought by ... her action to make [the criminal venture]
succeed." Contrary to Ms. Robertson's assertions, requiring proof the defendant
intentionally associated herself with a criminal venture would not leave the jury
(Supp. Vol. 1, Tr. at 27; Vol. 16, Tr. at 1045-47.) The district court denied the
objection. (Vol. 16, Tr. at 1047.)
-4-
free to assume "anyone who worked for Say No Now" fell within the meaning of
the term "participant."
Moreover, the jury instructions are to be read as a whole, as the trial court
repeatedly told the jury. See United States v. Lee, 54 F.3d 1534, 1536 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 247 (1995). Numerous instructions, including those
pertaining to the mail and wire fraud charges, spelled out the government's burden
to prove Ms. Robertson had acted with the specific intent to defraud. The jury
was instructed that her actions must have been "knowing" and "willful." The jury
also received a "good faith" instruction, requiring the government to prove Ms.
Robertson did not act with good faith, leaving little doubt as to the requisite mens
rea.
Considering the jury instructions as a whole, the jury was adequately
instructed and fairly guided in its deliberations on the aiding and abetting charge.
We find no likelihood that the jury was misled. Accordingly, we conclude the
district court committed no error.
-5-
Ms. Robertson also contends the district court erred in enhancing her base
offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. 3 She argues the district
court may depart under § 5K2.0 only if the applicable guidelines do not take a
special factor into account, and the district court impermissibly based its upward
departure on factors fully accounted for under the multiple victim and vulnerable
victim guidelines. 4 See U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1 and 3A1.1.
Ms. Robertson's codefendant, Robert Smith, raised this same argument. See
Smith, ___ F. 3d at ___, 1997 WL 796417 at *9. Guided by the United States
Supreme Court's analysis in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996), and this
court's analysis in United States v. Collins, 122 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1997), we
held the district court's imposition of an upward departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 5K2.0 was permissible provided an aggravating circumstance existed to a
degree not adequately taken into consideration by the relevant guidelines. See
Smith, ___ F. 3d at ___, 1997 WL 796417 at *12. We further held the record
3
Section 5K2.0 of the Guidelines annual sets forth the Sentencing
Commission's general policy statement on grounds for departure from the
sentence range established by the applicable guideline(s).
4
Ms. Robertson does not challenge directly the district court's application
of the guideline enhancements for vulnerable victim and multiple victims.
U.S.S.G. §§ 3A1.1(b) and 2F1.1(b)(2).
-6-
supported the district court's conclusion that the departure factors were present to
an exceptional degree with regard to Mr. Smith's offense behavior, i.e., his mass
victimization of the elderly. Id. at ___, *12-*13; see also Collins, 122 F.3d at
1303 (describing necessary factual inquiry).
We now ask whether the record as a whole supports the district court's
conclusion Ms. Robertson's offense behavior fell outside the "heartland of cases
in the Guideline[s]." Koon, 116 S. Ct. at 2046. We review the district's court's
decision to depart deferentially, under a unitary abuse of discretion standard. Id.
at 2047-48.
Ms. Robertson was convicted of participating in a scheme to defraud under
the guise of a bogus charity, Say No Now. In deciding to depart from the
guidelines, the district court noted the scheme was particularly predatory. The
scheme targeted scores of "the most susceptible people," particularly preying on
lonely, isolated, elderly persons. The same individuals were victimized
repeatedly, until, as in the case of one of Ms. Robertson's named victims, "there
was simply no more money." The sentencing court determined the victims were
psychologically, emotionally, and financially devastated as a result of the Say No
Now scheme. Adding insult to injury, victims were disparaged by Ms. Robertson
-7-
and her cohorts. Importantly, the trial court concluded Ms. Robertson was "fully
aware" of Say No Now's activities, and accountable for its mass victimization of
the elderly, not just the one victim who testified against her.
After listening to the evidence adduced at trial and proffers of proof at the
sentencing hearing, including the testimony of victims, the district court
concluded the despicable nature of Ms. Robertson's offense behavior placed it
outside the heartland of the applicable guidelines. After a thorough review of the
record, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in imposing a two-
level upward departure.
The judgment and sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-8-