Case: 12-12392 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12392
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60004-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROANNE EYE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 30, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12392 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Roanne Eye appeals her 60-month sentence for interference with the
administration of Internal Revenue Services (“IRS”) laws, in violation of
26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), and filing false and fictitious IRS claims, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 287. She argues the court erred by (1) applying an enhancement for
obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and (2) calculating the loss amount
based on tax refunds she never received. We affirm. 1
The district court did not err in applying the § 3C1.1 enhancement for
obstruction of justice. The Government proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that Eye attempted to obstruct the administration of justice when she
attempted to flee the courtroom prior to her trial, and when she sent the trial judge
a threatening letter that attempted to extort from him $600 million if he did not
dismiss her case. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; see also United States v. Matthews, 431
F.3d 1296, 1310 n.12 (11th Cir. 2005). Because the district court explained why
Eye’s conduct warranted the enhancement and described how she hindered the
prosecution of her offenses, see United States v. Alpert, 28 F.3d 1104, 1107–08
(11th Cir. 1994) (en banc), the court did not err in concluding Eye “consciously
acted with the purpose of obstructing justice,” see United States v. Massey, 443
F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
1
We review de novo the district court’s application of the § 3C1.1 obstruction of justice
enhancement, and review the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Doe,
661 F.3d 550, 565 (11th Cir. 2011). We review a district court’s determination of the amount of
the loss involved in a defendant’s offense for clear error. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d
1178, 1197 (11th Cir. 2011).
2
Case: 12-12392 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Also, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the tax loss in this
case at $1,127,559. Eye submitted claims for refunds to which she was not entitled
totaling $1,127,559. According to the Sentencing Guidelines and this Court’s
precedent, $1,127,559 was precisely the loss amount in this case for sentencing
purposes, because that is the loss Eye “intend[ed] to create when [she] falsifie[d]
[her] tax returns.” See United States v. Clarke, 562 F.3d 1158, 1164 (11th Cir.
2009); see also U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(c)(1) (“If the offense involved tax evasion or a
fraudulent or false return, statement, or other document, the tax loss is the total
amount of loss that was the object of the offense (i.e., the loss that would have
resulted had the offense been successfully completed).”); id. § 2T1.1(c)(4) (“If the
offense involved improperly claiming a refund to which the [defendant] was not
entitled, the tax loss is the amount of the claimed refund.”). That Eye never
received those refunds is irrelevant; she intended to cause those losses when she
filed her fraudulent returns. Therefore, the district court’s loss amount
determination is not clearly erroneous. See Clarke, 562 F.3d at 1164.
The district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
3