Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13482/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13482-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Orman Curtis Witherspoon
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13482

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00058-MW-CAS-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ORMAN CURTIS WITHERSPOON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(October 14, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Orman Curtis Witherspoon and four others were caught engaging in a 

massive conspiracy to file fraudulent tax returns using the personal identifying 

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 1 of 7
2

information of alive and deceased individuals. In a multi-count indictment, all 

were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1343 and 1349, and with theft of government funds and aiding and abetting, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Witherspoon pled guilty to the conspiracy and theft 

charges, and the District Court, varying downward from the Guidelines sentence 

range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment, sentenced him to concurrent prison terms 

of 72 months. Witherspoon appeals, contending that the District Court erred in 

applying the Guidelines in three ways: (1) it failed to reduce his offense level for 

playing a minimal or minor role in the conspiracy; (2) it held him responsible for 

the entire amount of loss resulting from the fraudulent conduct because he was not 

aware of the entire amount of loss nor could have he reasonably known about it; 

and (3) it increased his offense level by two levels due to the production of 

fraudulent debit cards because he personally did not produce the fraudulent debit 

cards that were manufactured and used during the course of the conspiracy. We 

affirm.

In considering whether the District Court erred in applying the Sentencing 

Guidelines, we accept the Court’s findings of fact unless they constitute clear error, 

and we review its interpretation of the Guidelines and applications of the 

Guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 2 of 7
3

1194–95 (11th Cir. 2011). With these standards in hand, we address 

Witherspoon’s arguments. 

I.

Witherspoon contends that the District Court committed clear error in 

refusing to reduce the offense level to reflect that he played a minimal or minor 

role in the conspiracy. The Guidelines define a minimal participant as a defendant 

who is plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of the 

group, while a minor participant is described as a defendant who is less culpable 

than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.1

 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.4, 5. To determine whether the defendant qualifies for a 

reduction of his offense level based on his status as a minimal or minor participant 

in the conspiracy, the district court must first compare the defendant’s role in the 

offense to that for which he was held accountable at sentencing and then may

compare the defendant’s conduct to that of the other participants involved in the 

offense. United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). 

The defendant must prove his minimal or minor role by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Id. 

 

1 Sections 3B1.2(a) and (b) of the Sentencing Guidelines state that if a defendant was a 

minimal participant in the crime, his offense level should be decreased by four points. U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.2(a), (b). If he was a minor participant, his offense level should be decreased by two. Id.

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 3 of 7
4

We find no clear error in the District Court’s denial of a §3B1.2 offenselevel reduction. Although the evidence before the Court showed that it was 

Witherspoon’s wife who devised the fraudulent scheme, the evidence also revealed

that Witherspoon himself assisted in the filing of the fraudulent tax returns, placed 

into his personal bank account money obtained from the fraudulent returns, paid 

co-conspirators from that bank account, and was in possession of fraudulent debit 

cards associated with the names of the alive and deceased individuals used on the 

fraudulent tax returns. He is not plainly among the least culpable in the entire 

group, because his actions were similar to the actions of the other co-conspirators. 

Indeed, the scheme in which Witherspoon participated could not have occurred 

without his filing of numerous fraudulent returns. Further, Witherspoon was not a 

minor actor, either, as he was not less culpable than most of his co-conspirators. 

He made no showing that he was situated differently than any of his coconspirators other than his wife. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in 

refusing to reduce Witherspoon’s offense points based on a mitigating role in the 

fraudulent scheme.

II.

Witherspoon argues next that the District Court erred in its loss 

determination by attributing to him loss caused solely by the acts of his coconspirators. Under the Guidelines, a defendant is held responsible for the loss 

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 4 of 7
5

that he knew or “under the circumstances, reasonably should have known was a 

potential result of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(A)(iii). Additionally, a 

defendant may be held responsible for the reasonably foreseeable acts of his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 

711, 727 (11th Cir. 2014). 

The evidence showed that Witherspoon was aware of the entire scope of the 

conspiracy because he lived in the home where a majority of the fraudulent tax 

returns were filed online and where the scheme was discussed by the conspirators 

in his presence, the personal identifying information of the victims was found in 

his home, he was married to the leader in the conspiracy, and other conspirators 

were his family members by marriage. The District Court did not clearly err in 

attributing loss to Witherspoon for what were obviously reasonably foreseeable 

acts of his co-conspirators, as Witherspoon was present in his home when much of 

the scheme was conceived by the conspirators. See Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 727-728 

(holding that the district court did not clearly err in holding two defendants 

accountable for loss caused by their co-conspirators when the defendants agreed to 

participate fully in the entire fraudulent returns scheme and one defendant lived at 

the address where many of the fraudulent returns had been made and the other 

defendant submitted fraudulent returns from his address, had family members who 

were co-conspirators, and received profits from the scheme).

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 5 of 7
6

III.

Finally, Witherspoon claims that the District Court erred in giving him a 

two-level offense enhancement for the production of fraudulent debit cards 

because he contends he did not produce the debit cards at issue. During the course 

of the conspiracy, debit cards were opened using the personal information of the 

victims in the fraudulent return scheme. The Guidelines provide for a two-level 

increase of the offense level for the “production or trafficking” of any 

“unauthorized access device or counterfeit access device.”2

 U.S.S.G. 

§ 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i). “Production” includes “manufacture, design, alteration, 

authentication, duplication, or assembly.” Id. § 2B.1.1 cmt. n.10(A). 

The undisputed facts set forth in the presentence investigation report and at 

sentencing show that Witherspoon received deposits from the fraudulent returns in 

his account, paid co-conspirators either directly from that account or by 

transferring the money to co-conspirators, and had fraudulent debit cards found in 

his home, in his bedroom, and one in his wallet. He may be held accountable for 

the reasonably foreseeable acts of his co-conspirators in furtherance of the jointly 

undertaken criminal activity. See Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 730. The production and 

use of the cards were reasonably foreseeable to Witherspoon: during the course of 

 

2 Witherspoon does not challenge that debit cards were used, or the classification of debit 

cards as “unauthorized access devices” under the Guidelines. He only disputes that he produced 

them.

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 6 of 7
7

the scheme, he transferred money to other co-conspirators and possessed the debit 

cards in his home and wallet. Therefore, the Court could hold him accountable for 

his co-conspirators’ production of unauthorized access devices.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-13482 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 7 of 7