USA v. Melinda G. Cohran

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 18, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-10322
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00031-CAR-CWH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MELINDA G. COHRAN
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 18, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 4 --

Melinda Cohran appeals her sentence of 85 months of imprisonment for
fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Cohran argues that her sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Cohran pleaded guilty to defrauding her former employer, Action
Commodities. Over a five or six year period, Cohran abused her position as the
office manager and bookkeeper by diverting into a personal account checks
payable to Action Commodities and reconciling the company accounts to conceal
her fraud. An audit revealed that Cohran stole about $750,549.47.
The presentence investigation report discussed Cohran’s crime and stated
that she suffered from a “thyroid condition and high blood pressure” and had
“report[ed] a history of gambling.” With a total offense level of 20 and a criminal
history of I, the report provided an advisory guideline range of 33 to 41 months of
imprisonment. Cohran faced a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years of
imprisonment.
The district court varied upward from the advisory guideline range and
sentenced Cohran to 85 months of imprisonment. The district court “concluded
that the guideline range [was] not adequate to address the gravity of [Cohran’s]
criminal conduct and the impact that [her] conduct . . . had on the lives of the
victim and the community.” The district court stated that Cohran committed an
2

-- 2 of 4 --

“extraordinar[il]y serious offense” by stealing “an enormous amount of money”
and “destroy[ing] [the victims] financially.”
Cohran’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
district court considered the sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and explained
that an upward variance was necessary to “reflect the seriousness of [Cohran’s]
offense, . . . promote respect for the law, . . . provide just punishment for [her]
offense, . . . afford adequate deterrence of criminal conduct,” and “protect the
public from further crimes.” See United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090
(11th Cir. 2008). Cohran argues that the district court failed to consider her
acceptance of responsibility, physical conditions, and addiction to gambling, but
this information was included in the presentence report that the district court
“considered” before imposing Cohran’s sentence. We will not disturb a sentence
unless “‘we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving
at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the
facts of the case.’” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)). Cohran
stole more than three quarters of a million dollars from Action Commodities and
caused its owners significant financial hardship. Cohran’s sentence is reasonable.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

We AFFIRM Cohran’s sentence.
4

-- 4 of 4 --