United States v. Stanley P. Bates

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · March 3, 2020 · No. 18-50785

Summary

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust, holding that the defendant—as majority owner and CEO of a company—held a position of trust characterized by professional discretion and minimal supervision. The court rejected the argument that the enhancement requires a fiduciary-like relationship with the victim, noting that it can be based on the defendant's superior position within the company that facilitated fraud against investors. The district court's finding was reviewed for clear error and upheld because the defendant's managerial role and lack of oversight enabled him to perpetrate and conceal a wire fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud scheme.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
KING; JONES; COSTA
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 3, 2020
Docket number
18-50785
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 5:17-CR-381-2. Defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to multiple fraud counts.
Standard of review
clear error
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Stanley P. Bates v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduresentencingfraudsecurities fraud

Practice areas

criminal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Bates held a position of trust as majority owner and CEO of his company, because he had managerial discretion and minimal supervision, and he abused that position to facilitate the fraud.

Key quotations

A position of trust is characterized by (1) professional or managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference), and (2) minimal supervision. (2)
Finding a person held a position of trust is warranted 'if a defendant's job places the defendant in a superior position to commit a crime and the defendant takes advantage of that superior position to facilitate a crime.' (2)
Neither our precedent nor the guidelines require this determination 'be assessed from the perspective of the victim.' (2)
This court has repeatedly held that individuals occupying high managerial offices within a company may hold a position of trust. (2-3)

Factual background

Bates was the majority owner and CEO of a company. He operated a fraudulent scheme that involved falsifying records, doctoring promotional materials, and making material misrepresentations to secure investments. He used his position of managerial discretion and minimal supervision to perpetrate and conceal the fraud. The scheme involved wire fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud.

Procedural history

Bates pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, substantive money laundering, and aiding and abetting securities fraud. He was sentenced to 180 months. He challenges the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…