Case ID: f-appx_209/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Rodriguez CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Calderon, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 05-51524, 06-50264
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 12, 2006.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendanfr-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Rodriguez Calderon pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, on April 25, 2005, to a four-count indictment charging him with uttering counterfeit checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Rodriguez Calderon argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level adjustment for sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(9)(C). He argues that printing checks using a computer program available for purchase by anyone at a local office supply store, sending a check in the mail to purchase coins, and walking a check into a financial institution to open an account did not constitute sophisticated means. Even though certain aspects of Rodriguez Calderon’s scheme were not sophisticated, the offense as a whole involved sophisticated means. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340 (5th Cir.1996). Rodriguez Calderon has failed to show that the district court erred in imposing a two-level increase based on his use of sophisticated means during the offense.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.