United States v. Stephen Erhart, Also Known as Stephen Anthony Erhart (2005)

See Lopez, 431 F.3d at 318 ; United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

“We construe the terms ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

Cf. Fazio, 487 F.3d at 659 (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for real estate agent who committed wire and mail fraud by submitting fraudulent claims to a mortgage company); United States v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir.2006) (holding that attorney who lied during a bankruptcy proceeding abused a position of public trust); Erhart, 415 F.3d at 972-73 (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for chiropractor who submitted false insurance claims).

See United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 971 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[U]nder [§ 3E1.1(a)], the defendant must -5- accept responsibility for all of the conduct that is part of his conviction.

See United States v. Mendoza, 341 F.3d 687, 694 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding the imposition of a sentencing enhancement under § 3B1.1 when the defendant, among other things, hired an individual to transport methamphetamine from California to Missouri); Erhart, 415 F.3d at 973 (“[T]he simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.”).

Appx. 952 , 955 (8th Cir. 2020) (affirming the manager-or-supervisor enhancement where defendant directed at least one person to get marijuana and sell it in one transaction); United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.”), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. White, 863 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2017).

See United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.”).

To receive the reduction, “the defendant must accept responsibility for all of the conduct that is part of his conviction.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 971 (8th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, United States v. White, 863 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Cf. United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 972 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a chiropractor was able to continue a fraudulent scheme because “the insurance companies trusted” him).

United States v. Irlmeier, 750 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 2014). “[T]he simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005).

See United States v. Mahone, 688 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of § 3E1.1(a) enhancement where the defendant' “enter[ed] a plea of guilty and admit[ted] what he needed to admit to get his plea accepted and did not go beyond that” and then later “argued and tried to explain [and] denied things that simply were true”); United States v. Jones, 539 F.3d 895, 897 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of enhancement where the district court found “frivolous denials] …

This conduct, by itself, constitutes a “managerial” function under § 3B1.1 [(c)]."); United States v. Clark-Thomas, 478 Fed.Appx. 568, 570-71 (11th Cir.2012) (finding recruitment supports enhancement under § 3Bl.l(c)); United States v. Young, 334 Fed.Appx. 477, 482 (3rd Cir.2009) (manager enhancement proper where defendant recruited accomplice to travel from Florida to Pennsylvania and paid for accomplice’s travel expenses, provided drugs, and directed accomplice to parking …

Unites States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 971 (8th Cir.2005).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir.2005).

Finally, “ ‘[w]e construe the terms “manager” or “supervisor” broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3331.1(b),’” United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049, 1056 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005)), and the sentencing court is free to consider factors such as: the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits …

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1156 , 126 S.Ct. 1181 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1138 (2006).

“In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain an ultimate finding of guilt following a bench trial, we apply the same standard of review that is applied where a defendant has been found guilty by a jury; that is to say, the finding must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985, 991 (8th Cir.1977)).

“We construe the terms ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1,” and “the simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Schwarck, 961 F.2d 121, 123 (8th Cir.1992) and United States v. Pierce, 907 F.2d 56, 57 (8th Cir.1990)).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir.2005).

“We construe the terms ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.” Rosas, 486 F.3d at 376 (quoting United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Cf. Fazio, 487 F.3d at 659 (affirming abuse-of- trust enhancement for real estate agent who committed wire and mail fraud by submitting fraudulent claims to a mortgage company); United States v. Goldman, 447 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that attorney who lied during a bankruptcy proceeding abused a position of public trust); Erhart, 415 F.3d at 972-73 (affirming abuse-of-trust enhancement for chiropractor who submitted false insurance claims).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2005).

See United States v. Fazio, 487 F.3d 646, 659 (8th Cir.2007) (involving the relationship between an insurance agent and out-of-state mortgage companies); United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 972 (8th Cir.2005) (involving the relationship between a chiropractor and the insurance companies to which he submitted claims for reimbursement).

However, when calculating loss amounts, district judges are “in a unique position to assess evidence and estimate the loss based upon that evidence.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005).

“We construe the terms ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Schwarck, 961 F.2d 121, 123 (8th Cir.1992)).

The term “public or private trust” refers to “a position characterized by professional or managerial discretion, whereby the offender is subject to significantly less supervision than employees whose responsibilities are primarily non-discretionary in nature.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 972 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1156 (2006); see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 cmt. n.1.

See United States v. Rosas, 486 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.2007); United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 1156 , 126 S.Ct. 1181 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1138 (2006).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir.2005) (internal citation omitted).

See United States v. Rosas, 486 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.2007) (citing factors from U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.4)); United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005) (“[T]he simple fact that a defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant being a manager or supervisor.”).

Timeliness is a relevant factor in determining eligibility for a two-level reduction, both because untimely admissions may force the government and the court to expend resources unnecessarily, see United States v. Kiel, 454 F.3d 819, 824 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 972 (8th Cir. 2005), and because the timeliness of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility is a measure of his true contrition and remorse for the criminal conduct.

See Erhart, 415 F.3d at 972 (“If the insurance companies had exercised more control over [the defendant], then it is likely the fraud would have been discovered.

See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 676 F.3d 183, 192-93 (D.C.Cir.2012) (Henderson, J.)(holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce a defendant’s sentence for acceptance of responsibility where the defendant “finally came clean in his fourth debriefing” after having “repeatedly lied and dissembled for months before finally agreeing to cooperate”); United States v. Diaz-Gaudarama, 614 F.3d 387, 390-91 (7th Cir.2010) (denying 2-level re…

See, e.g., United States v. Diaz-Gaudarama, 614 F.3d 387, 390-91 (7th Cir.2010)(denying 2-level reduction for a defendant who first attempted to enter a guilty plea the day trial was to commence, before jury selection); United States v. Montero, 336 Fed.Appx. 941, 942 (11th Cir.2009)(holding that a defendant who pled guilty to conspiracy to induce aliens to enter the United States was not eligible for two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, because the defendan…

Such situations include: (1) statements made during a debtor’s bankruptcy examination at a Section 341 meeting, Id. (citing In re Parmetex, Inc., 199 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir.1999) (McKeown, J., dissenting)); (2) a relationship between an insurance agent and an out-of-state mortgage company, United States v. Fazio, 487 F.3d 646, 659 (8th Cir.2007); and (3) a relationship between a chiropractor and the insurance companies to which he submitted claims for reimbursement, United…

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2005).

United States v Erhart, 415 F3d 965, 969 [8th Cir 2005], cert denied 546 US 1156 [2006] [where character of weapon was “quasi-suspect,” such as sawed-off shotgun, government was not required to prove possessor’s knowledge of specific characteristics of weapon that brought it within scope of statute]; United States v Wein-traub, 273 F3d 139 , 149-151 [2d Cir 2001] [government only required to prove defendant’s knowledge that substance involved was asbestos, not that asbestos …