US v. Yolanda Poz, No. 11-4484 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4484 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YOLANDA MEDINA POZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00830-HMH-2) Submitted: November 22, 2011 Decided: November 29, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessica Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yolanda Medina Poz appeals her forty-six month sentence following her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit tax fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006) and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011). Poz applying a first argues four-level that the enhancement district under Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 3B1.1 (2010). § 3B1.1(a), a four-level enhancement may We affirm. court U.S. erred in Sentencing Pursuant to USSG be imposed if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five extensive[.] or A more district participants court need or was only find otherwise the facts supporting a § 3B1.1(a) enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238 (4th Cir. 1989). In reviewing the district court s calculations under the Guidelines, this court review[s] the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. error. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether to in apply an enhancement based on a defendant s role the offense is a factual determination reviewed on appeal for clear error. United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir. 2009). 2 There is evidence that Poz maintained thorough records of the fraudulent activity, advised other participants, arranged the collection of paperwork and distribution of fraudulent returns, and received a monetary benefit from each transaction. Further, there is evidence that substantial amount of tax fraud. the scheme involved a We therefore conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its finding. Poz also argues that the district court misapplied the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) and that the court failed to sufficiently selected sentence. explain the reasons for its Because the issue was preserved on appeal, review in this court is for harmless error. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. The district court explained its reasons for selecting a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range by discussing the degree, scope, and nature of Poz s conduct. 325, 330 (4th individualized Cir. See United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 2009) assessment (district based on the court must facts of make the an case, though that assessment need not be lengthy or elaborate). We conclude that the district court adequately stated its grounds for the within-Guidelines sentence and therefore did not err. We court. legal therefore affirm the judgment of the district We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
