Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0438-01.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. Travis Eugene KIRKPATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40264.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Vincent A Gonzalez, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Travis Eugene Kirkpatrick appeals following his guilty-plea conviction of aiding and abetting possession of a counterfeited security with intent to deceive another person or organization. He argues that the district court erroneously calculated his sentence because he should have been held accountable only for the six checks that he cashed and the victims involved, rather than for all of the organization’s intended loss occurring after he joined it and for the victims of that loss.

The district court could fairly infer a joint undertaking whose scope encompassed the check-cashing activities of the other members of the organization from the fact that Kirkpatrick participated with the other members in selecting the cities and stores in which to cash the checks and the fact that he coordinated his check cashing with the other members. See United States v. Evbuomwan, 992 F.2d 70, 74 (5th Cir.1993); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment. (n.2). The cashing of checks by the other members of the organization was both in furtherance of the organization’s jointly undertaken criminal activity and reasonably foreseeable in connection with it. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, comment, (n.2).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.