111232P.pdf   08/29/2014  United States  v.  Abby Rae Cole
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1232
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, 
   see United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016) (8th Cir. 2013). On remand, the 
   district court provided an adequate explanation for its decision to grant 
   a downward variance and sentence defendant to probation; sentence was 
   substantively reasonable. 
  
111232P.pdf   08/06/2013  United States  v.  Abby Rae Cole
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1232
                          and No:  11-1513
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Murphy and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. Evidence was sufficient to prove 
   Cole knowingly and intentionally joined in an agreement to defraud Best 
   Buy and that she willfully committed affirmative acts constituting tax 
   evasion and that a tax deficiency resulted. Evidence was sufficient to 
   sustain tax fraud conspiracy. District court did not err in denying her 
   motion for acquittal on claim there was a prejudicial variance in the 
   evidence used on the tax evasion and tax fraud conspiracy charges because 
   there was no variance. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   rejecting Cole's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the 
   evidence, as there was sufficient evidence Cole played a role in the 
   conspiracy, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based 
   on admission of a government exhibit. Because the district court's 
   variance from a guideline range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment to three 
   years probation when her coconspirators received 180 months and 90 months 
   imprisonment represented a major departure, the district court's brief and 
   contradictory explanation is insufficient to allow for meaningful 
   appellate review of whether sentence is substantively unreasonable. 
   Sentence is remanded for the district court to offer a fuller explanation 
   for the sentence.