Sandra Iribhogbe Popnen was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. She appealed her within-Guidelines-range sentence of 325 months, arguing that the district court made errors in calculating the loss amount, improperly denied a sentencing reduction, and imposed a sentence that was unreasonably long compared to her co-defendants. The appeal arose from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The Fifth Circuit addressed three primary issues. First, regarding loss attribution, the court applied the relevant conduct standard, which includes all reasonably foreseeable acts of others in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity. The court found no clear error in attributing losses from fraudulent unemployment-insurance claims submitted by co-conspirators to Popnen, relying on the evidence in the presentence report and sentencing testimony. Second, concerning the 'online romance' scheme losses, the court noted that the presentence report relied on law-enforcement calculations, providing sufficient indicia of reliability. Because Popnen failed to rebut this evidence in the district court, she could not show clear or obvious error on appeal. Third, the court upheld the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, finding the district court's decision was not without foundation. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the 325-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. Since the Guidelines range was calculated correctly, the sentence is presumptively reasonable, and Popnen failed to demonstrate an unwarranted disparity with other sentences.
Popnen's conviction and sentence remain in effect without modification. The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit's standard for reviewing loss calculations in fraud cases, confirming that presentence reports based on law-enforcement investigations carry sufficient reliability unless specifically rebutted at the district court level. It also clarifies that defendants challenging within-Guidelines sentences for disparity must provide strong evidence to overcome the presumption of reasonableness.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download