Opinion
No. 03-40029-01-SAC
April 22, 2004
RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO PRESENTENCE REPORT
Antoinette Hatlelid is the sole defendant named in a three-count superseding indictment that charged her with making false material statements to a financial institution, with possessing with the intent to use false identification documents, with falsely representing a social security number to the Kansas Department of Revenue. The defendant pleaded guilty to count three: false representation of a social security number. The government agreed to dismiss the other counts, to bring no further charges based on allegations in the indictments, to recommend the maximum adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. The Presentence Report ("PSR")calculates a base offense level of six with the following adjustments: a four-level increase for loss, a two-level increase for violating an administrative child support order, and a two-level increase for having five or more unlawful means of false identification. The PSR calculates a total offense level of twelve after a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Using a criminal history category of one, the PSR recommends a sentencing guideline range of ten to sixteen months.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION No. 1: The defendant takes issue with the listing of aliases and denies ever using the spelling of Saenez or the name of Antoinette Renee Krazier. The defendant further argues that two of the aliases are the same except for the middle name, and she denies using that spelling of "Lynne."
Ruling: A ruling on this objection would have no effect on the sentencing in this case. Rule 32(i)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that for any disputed or controverted portion of the PSR, the sentencing court must either rule on the dispute "or determine that a ruling is unnecessary because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing." The court hereby determines that a ruling on these disputed aliases would not affect the sentence to be imposed in this case and that the disputed aliases will not be relied upon in sentencing the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION NO. 2: The defendant complains that the loans listed in ¶ 24 were for real estate purchased by her and Richard Hatlelid and that the loans were secured using the income of Richard Hatlelid. According to the defendant, the name of Diana LaPointe has been removed from the title to one of the properties, and efforts are being made to remove this name from the other properties and loans.
Ruling: A ruling on this objection would have no effect on the sentence to be imposed here. The defendant's efforts now to resolve these name issues on titles and loans does not impact the relevant sentencing determinations. No ruling is necessary.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION NO. 3: The defendant objects to the four-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C) for loss based on the amount of child support owed to the State of California. The defendant also objects to the two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(7)(C) for violation of an administrative child support order. The defendant claims she assumed the alias to escape a physically and emotionally abusive relationship with her mother and further denies she intended her alias to be a way to avoid payment of child support. The defendant takes issue with the amount of loss arguing that it fails to account for the father's failure to pay child support and for her payments to date. The defendant challenges as speculative the statement from her son, Mark Saenz, that the defendant "changed her name while living in Louisiana, he believed, so she could avoid paying child support, and so his grandmother could not find them." (PSR, ¶ 22).
Ruling: While she objects to the PSR's finding on her intent in assuming the alias, she does not dispute the conclusion in ¶ 24 that by using the alias she "avoided paying child support in the amount of $17,724 in the State of California." The defendant does not argue that she voluntarily continued to pay the support after she assumed the alias or that the State of California's efforts to collect child support were not frustrated by her alias. By filing income tax returns using her alias, she avoided having any refunds garnished for child support owed. Thus, the uncontroverted facts establish that her use of the alias enabled her to avoid paying child support, interfered with California's enforcement of the child support order, and caused a loss in the amount of child support owed.
As undisputed in ¶ 19, the defendant applied for this false social security number on April 19, 1995. Less than two months later, the defendant's federal income tax refund was involuntarily garnished for the child support owed to California. (PSR, ¶ 99). The timing of these events supports an inference that the defendant's reasons for assuming an alias may have included a desire to avoid collection of the support owed.
There is no merit to the defendant's objections to the amount of support owed. The defendant does not contest the PSR's factual accuracy in calculating an amount exceeding $10,000. The defendant cannot claim any credit to this loss calculation based upon the father also being liable for the child support. The defendant was jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of past due child support. Even accepting as true the defendant's allegations that she made some payments towards the child support owed, there is no dispute that the amount of loss exceeded $10,000 when the government discovered the defendant's offense. The court overrules the defendant's objection to the four-level adjustment for amount of loss.
The defendant's objection to ¶ 32 of the PSR fares no better. Whatever the defendant's intent was in assuming the alias, she violated the child support order by not paying child support and by using the alias so as to avoid paying child support and interfering with California's enforcement of it. The court overrules the defendant's objection to this two-level adjustment.
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION NO. 4: The defendant contends the second arrest described in ¶ 44 is erroneous.
Ruling: A ruling on this objection would have no effect on the sentence to be imposed here. The defendant did not receive any criminal history points, and this arrest will not be considered in determining the defendant's sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.