United States v. Davidson

── United States v. Davidson ── Case No.: 24-448 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 24-448 United States v. Davidson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 24-448 VICTORIA DAVIDSON, Defendant-Appellant. * _____________________________________ For Appellee: JONATHAN LEAVITT BODANSKY (Madison Reddick Smyser, Daniel C. Richenthal, James Ligtenberg, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption. 1 For Defendant-Appellant: JAMESA J. DRAKE, Drake Law, LLC, Auburn, ME. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Victoria Davidson (“Davidson”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), entered on February 20, 2024 and convicting her, following a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Davidson conspired with co-defendant George Guldi (“Guldi”) to misappropriate $253,236 that Guldi’s mortgage sub-servicer had received as a settlement payment from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The district court sentenced Davidson principally to nine months in prison and to three years of supervised release, a sentence significantly below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Davidson argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury about Guldi’s criminal history, in denying her motions to sever her trial from Guldi’s, and in applying a two- level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for sophisticated means. We affirm because Davidson forfeited or waived her arguments about the jury instructions and because the district court did not err in denying the motions to sever or in applying the Guidelines enhancement. We assume familiarity with the remaining facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. 1 1 Throughout its brief, the Government cites to various trial exhibits that are included in the appendix. This is impermissible. FED. R. APP. P. 28(e) (“References to the parts of the