Warrell

United States v. Warrell

Good Law
40 F. App'x 425
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 14, 2002No. 01-30400; D.C. No. CR-A-01-00110-JWSCalifornia535 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Tanya Warrell was involved in a fraudulent check scheme between May 2000 and June 2001. She pleaded guilty to two counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2) and was sentenced on November 5, 2001 to 10 months imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (“the 2000 Guidelines”), which had been deleted on November 1, 2001. The district court sentenced Warrell under the 2000 Guidelines because it found that U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (“the 2001 Guidelines”), which became effective on November 1, 2001, would result in a lengthier sentence. 1 Warrell appeals her sentence and argues that the 2001 Guidelines would have provided a shorter sentence. We disagree and affirm.

An issue is whether Warrell’s bad check writing from May 2000 to June 2001 could be considered “relevant conduct” for sentencing purposes, even when most of the bad checks were not used to defraud the banks but rather defrauded vendors and others. It is true that the conviction was for defrauding the banks by opening accounts with bad checks. However, a sentencing court may consider relevant conduct beyond the specific acts underlying the offense of conviction. See generally U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. “In assessing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.