Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-24-2006
USA v. Rhoades
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3273
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rhoades" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1049.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1049
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3273
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
GARY DEAN RHOADES,
d/b/a RHOADES CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
Gary Dean Rhoades, Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 04-cr-00051E )
District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 17, 2006
Before: RENDELL, Van ANTWERPEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 24, 2006)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and one count of wire
fraud. He was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment to be followed by three
years of supervised release. His appeal contends that the District Court erred in deciding
1
that he occupied a position of trust for purposes of section 3B1.3 of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. The District Court concluded that “there is no doubt in the
Court’s mind here that Mr. Rhoades did occupy a position of trust and that he violated
that trust.”
The defendant acted as a financial advisor to Venango County and
Northwestern School District. Because this opinion is not precedential, we need not
review the details of his criminal scheme, which were adequately developed in the
evidentiary hearing prior to sentencing. By misusing the authority the County and School
District granted him to place funds for investment, he caused heavy losses to both
governmental agencies.
Section 3B1.3 provides, in relevant part, that “if the defendant abused a
position of public or private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the
commission or concealment of the offense, increase by 2 levels." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3.
“Professional or managerial discretion (i.e. substantial discretionary judgment that is
ordinarily given considerable deference)” characterize positions of trust for purposes of
section 3B1.3. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 cmt.1. Our Court has established a three-prong test to
determine whether an individual occupies a position of trust for the purposes of section
3B1.3: “(1) whether the position allows the defendant to commit a difficult-to-detect
wrong; (2) the degree of authority which the position vests in defendant vis-a-vis the
object of the wrongful act; (3) whether there has been reliance on the integrity of the
person occupying the position.” United States v. Pardo, 25 F.3d 1187, 1192 (3d Cir.
2
1994).
The district judge found that the defendant’s position “allowed him to
commit a difficult to detect wrong,” he had authority to carry out the wrongful act, and
that Venango County and Northwestern School District relied on his integrity.
We conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that the defendant
occupied a position of trust under the Guidelines and therefore an enhancement was
proper. In any event, the sentence was reasonable and was not “‘imposed in violation of
the law.’” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
3742(a)(1)).
Accordingly, the Judgment of Sentence will be affirmed.
3