The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Jennifer Lynn Thornton, who pleaded guilty to 10 counts of wire fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of federal law. The court rejected her appeal in a per curiam opinion filed Jan. 12, 2026.
Thornton was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, which criminalize wire fraud and prohibit aiding and abetting respectively. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced her to concurrent 41-month prison terms for each count, within the federal sentencing guidelines range. The court also ordered her to pay approximately $125,000 in restitution to victims.
On appeal, Thornton challenged the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.3, which allows for enhanced penalties when a defendant abuses a position of trust or uses special skills in committing the offense. Thornton argued the enhancement was improperly applied because she neither occupied a position of trust nor possessed special skills relevant to the crimes.
Alternatively, Thornton contended that applying the enhancement constituted improper double counting under the sentencing guidelines. Double counting occurs when the same conduct is used to enhance a sentence multiple times, which is generally prohibited under federal sentencing law.
The Fifth Circuit panel, consisting of Judges Barksdale, Oldham, and Douglas, found both of Thornton's contentions without merit. In their brief per curiam opinion, the judges noted that while the Sentencing Guidelines became advisory rather than mandatory following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, district courts retain broad discretion in applying them.
The appeals court's opinion indicates that the district court properly considered the guidelines and applied the position of trust enhancement appropriately to Thornton's case. However, the published portion of the opinion does not elaborate on the specific facts underlying Thornton's crimes or the nature of any position of trust she may have held.
Wire fraud prosecutions have become increasingly common as federal prosecutors target schemes involving electronic communications and financial fraud. The statute requires prosecutors to prove the defendant participated in a scheme to defraud others and used interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme.
The aiding and abetting charge suggests Thornton either assisted others in committing wire fraud or was assisted by others in her own fraudulent conduct. Federal law treats those who aid and abet crimes as equally culpable as principal offenders.
Sentencing enhancements under § 3B1.3 are frequently contested in white-collar crime cases. The guideline allows for a two-level increase in offense level when defendants abuse positions of trust, such as employment relationships that provide access to victims' property or information. It also applies when defendants use special skills, such as professional expertise, to facilitate their crimes.
The position of trust enhancement has been applied to various professional relationships, including employees who defraud employers, financial advisors who steal from clients, and caregivers who exploit vulnerable individuals. Courts examine whether the defendant's position provided access that facilitated the criminal conduct.
Thornton's case was prosecuted under cause number 4:22-CR-289-1 in the Southern District of Texas, indicating the charges were filed in 2022. The relatively quick resolution suggests she may have entered a guilty plea early in the proceedings, potentially as part of a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors.
The $125,000 restitution order reflects the court's assessment of victim losses from Thornton's wire fraud scheme. Federal law requires courts to order full restitution to victims in cases involving fraud and other economic crimes, ensuring that defendants compensate those harmed by their conduct.
The Fifth Circuit's summary calendar disposition indicates the court viewed the appeal as lacking merit sufficient to warrant full briefing and oral argument. Such dispositions are common when appellate courts find no reversible error in lower court proceedings.
Thornton's 41-month sentence falls within the typical range for wire fraud convictions involving similar loss amounts. Federal sentencing guidelines calculate penalties based primarily on loss amounts and the defendant's criminal history, with various enhancements potentially increasing the recommended sentence range.
The affirmance means Thornton must serve her prison sentence and pay the full restitution amount. She may seek to petition the Supreme Court for review, though the high court grants certiorari in only a small percentage of criminal cases and typically only when significant legal issues are presented.
The case demonstrates federal courts' continued emphasis on deterring wire fraud through meaningful prison sentences and full victim restitution, particularly when defendants abuse positions of trust to facilitate their crimes.