UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENITA HILL,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00225-GLR-1)
Argued: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Joanna Beth Silver, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Tamera Lynn Fine,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Joshua
Felsen, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Denita Hill of one count of wire fraud
conspiracy and two counts of aggravated identity theft. Hill now
appeals, arguing that the district court clearly erred in
imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
I.
Hill worked as an accountant with the City of Baltimore’s
Finance Department Bureau of Accounting and Payroll Services
(BAPS). As relevant here, Hill’s job entailed verifying the non-
receipt of lost or stolen checks and completing paperwork for
the reissuance of such checks. Hill become disgruntled with her
employment and began creating a plan with her friend Robert
Johnson. Hill told Johnson that she had found a way to steal
money without anyone noticing—by reissuing checks that had
already been cashed by their recipients. Hill said she could
reissue the checks, sign them over to Johnson, and he could cash
them. Hill also told Johnson that she could handle any
investigation. The two agreed to Hill’s plan and, on two
separate occasions, Hill submitted and processed paperwork for
duplicate checks for lump-sum retirement benefits that had
already been cashed by their recipients. After the checks were
issued by other BAPS employees, Hill gave them to Johnson, who
cashed them.
2
Shortly thereafter, Joyce Lochridge, a fraud investigator
for M&T Bank, became suspicious of the deposits and contacted
Russell Connelly, an agent with the City of Baltimore’s Office
of the Inspector General. Conelley contacted a supervisor in the
Finance Department to inquire about the paperwork supporting the
checks. Conelley also tried unsuccessfully to contact the
retirees directly.
Less than an hour after Conelley called the Finance
Department, Hill (unsolicited) called Conelley to tell him that
she had looked into the checks and that they were properly
reissued. Hill told Conelley that she had spoken to the retirees
and both told her they had received the checks and signed them
over to Johnson. Conelley pressed Hill, asking why two unrelated
retirees would both sign their checks over to Johnson, and Hill
opined that the retirees might be trying to avoid a garnishment.
Conelley spoke again with Lochridge, and Lochridge told him of a
similar conversation that she had with Hill. Later that day,
Conelley interviewed Hill. During that interview, Hill repeated
her earlier explanation that she had investigated the checks and
determined that there was no impropriety. She further claimed
that she did not know Johnson.
After speaking with Hill, Conelley resumed his efforts to
find the underlying paperwork supporting the reissuance of the
checks. As part of this effort, he went to the BAPS office to
3
lead a search. During the search, Conelley determined that the
paperwork supporting the two checks was not with the paperwork
for other checks reissued on those days. In fact, although
multiple employees aided Conelley in this search, the paperwork
was never recovered. Several BAPS employees testified that they
would never reissue a check without the corresponding paperwork.
For example, Kevin Logan—who had reissued one of the checks
cashed by Johnson—testified that he specifically remembered
having supporting paperwork when he issued the check.
Based on the foregoing, a federal grand jury indicted Hill
and Johnson on one count of wire fraud conspiracy, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, two counts of substantive wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and two counts of aggravated
identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Johnson pled
guilty, but Hill proceeded to trial. A jury convicted Hill of
wire fraud conspiracy and the two counts of aggravated identity
theft but acquitted her of the substantive wire fraud counts.
Following trial, the probation office prepared a Pre-
Sentence Report (PSR), recommending a two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The PSR noted
that “[i]n addition to destroying evidence, Ms. Hill reportedly
reached out to investigators after the investigation was under
way and tried to derail the investigation. In addition, she lied
to investigators during an interview.” (J.A. 958).
4
At sentencing, Hill objected to the obstruction
enhancement. She conceded that she intended to obstruct justice
but argued that she failed to do so as defined by the Guidelines
because the investigation uncovered that she was the
perpetrator. In response to this argument, the district court
noted that “even if the delay is for a day, I mean, that day
bought her a day to potentially grind the evidence, grind the
paperwork.” (J.A. 987-88). The court also asked the Government
to make its strongest case that Hill’s conduct fell within the
enhancement. The Government argued that the missing paperwork
was material to its case because it kept them from being able to
complete a paper trail back to Hill and likely led to Hill’s
acquittal on the substantive wire fraud count.
Following argument, the district court held that the
evidence supported the enhancement. The court found that Hill’s
conduct obstructed justice in three ways. First, the court
referred to Johnson’s testimony that Hill “had a plan in place
to be able to thwart the investigation.” (J.A. 994). Second, the
court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Hill
destroyed the paperwork and then explained that the “missing
documentation clearly was material and . . . hindered the
investigation.” (J.A. 994). Finally, the court noted that Hill
made “material misrepresentations” to Agent Conelley that
“obstructed the investigation in this case, and hindered it”
5
because the misrepresentations bought her additional time to
destroy the paperwork and cover her tracks. (J.A. 994).
With the obstruction enhancement, the district court found
that Hill’s offense level was 19 and her Guidelines range was
30-37 months. The court then varied downward four levels and
sentenced Hill to 18 months imprisonment on the wire fraud
count. The court also sentenced Hill to an additional 24 months
imprisonment on the aggravated identity theft counts,
consecutive to the 18-month sentence for wire fraud conspiracy,
for a total sentence of 42 months imprisonment. Hill timely
appealed.
II.
On appeal, Hill challenges only the two-level enhancement
for obstruction of justice. We review the district court’s legal
interpretations of the Guidelines de novo and its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Medina-Campo, 714
F.3d 232, 234 (4th Cir. 2013). When, as here, a district court
offers several independent bases for the obstruction
enhancement, we need only uphold one in order to affirm. United
States v. Ashers, 968 F.2d 411, 414 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding
that “if the enhancement was applied properly on an alternative
basis, the resulting adjusted offense level is correctly
determined”).
6
The enhancement for obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. §
3C1.1, provides:
If (1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded,
or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration
of justice with respect to the investigation,
prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of
conviction . . . increase the offense level by 2
levels.
Application Note 4(G) states that “providing a materially false
statement to a law enforcement officer that significantly
obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution
of the instant offense” warrants the enhancement. U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1, app. note 4(G).
We hold that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Hill provided materially false statements to a law
enforcement officer. * To begin, the statements Hill made to
Conelley during her phone call and later interview were both
material and false. A statement is material under § 3C1.1 when
“if believed,” the statement “would tend to influence or affect
the issue under determination.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, app. note 6.
Hill’s statements, in which she offered a false explanation for
the need to reissue the checks and explained why the recipients
* On appeal, Hill argues for the first time that Conelley is
not a “law enforcement officer” for purposes of the enhancement.
The district court did not plainly err in finding otherwise;
Agent Conelley served as the lead agent in Hill’s prosecution
and worked for the city agency responsible for investigating
fraud by city employees.
7
would turn the checks over to Johnson clearly meet the
“conspicuously low” bar for materiality. United States v.
Gormley, 201 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Likewise, the district court did not err in
finding that the statements significantly obstructed the
investigation because, as the court explained, they bought Hill
time to destroy the underlying paperwork and cover her tracks.
That the jury acquitted Hill of the wire fraud charges is
further support for the court’s conclusion that Hill’s
statements significantly impeded the investigation and
prosecution. Moreover, the fact that Hill was ultimately
unsuccessful in her attempts to divert the investigation does
not let her escape the enhancement. See United States v. Hicks,
948 F.2d 877, 884-85 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying enhancement for
obstruction when defendant threw cocaine out of his car during a
high speed chase but, after arrest, helped officers recover the
evidence).
III.
Because the district court did not clearly err in finding
that Hill made materially false statements to Conelley that
significantly impeded the investigation and prosecution, we find
that the court correctly imposed the two-level enhancement for
8
obstruction of justice. We accordingly affirm Hill’s conviction
and sentence.
AFFIRMED
9