LITTLE ROCK — A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an appeal by a woman who pleaded guilty to defrauding Walmart out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and later was found to have violated the terms of her supervised release.

LITTLE ROCK — A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an appeal by a woman who pleaded guilty to defrauding Walmart out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and later was found to have violated the terms of her supervised release.

Goldie Lujoyce Holt of Pulaski County pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a scheme to commit wire fraud and was sentenced in July 2008 to 2 1/2 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $265,747 in restitution.

Federal prosecutors said Holt and her accomplices — at least six other people were charged — called Money Gram locations inside various Walmart stores, claimed to be home-office employees and asked for “test transfers” of moneys to other Money Gram locations, where accomplices picked up the money. The total loss to Walmart was about $675,000.

In March of this year, U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson found Holt guilty of failing to pay restitution, in violation of the terms of her release. He revoked her supervised release and sentenced her to one year and one day in prison.

On the day before her sentencing in 2008, Holt had transferred $43,450 from her account to the account of her boyfriend, Robert Crouch, who had used the money to buy a $92,000 home. Holt argued at her revocation hearing that she could not sell the home to pay restitution because it was not in her name and said she made the transfer to ensure that her young daughter would have a home while she was in prison.

Wilson found Holt’s arguments unpersuasive. In his March order sending her back to prison, he called the transfer of money to Crouch “fraudulent.”

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit upheld that ruling Monday.

Holt’s need to provide a home for her daughter “is doubtless a relevant and legitimate personal circumstance,” Judge James Loken wrote in the court’s opinion. “But it cannot justify a secretive, last-minute transaction that placed substantial assets identified in the PSR (pre-sentencing report) as available for restitution beyond the reach of the sentencing court.”