Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01227/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andriy Andrew Susel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1227

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Andriy Andrew Susel, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andriy Andrew Susel worked for a software manufacturer in its production

department. He stole copyrighted software from his workplace, sold the software on

eBay, and delivered the software to purchasers through the United States mails. A

jury convicted Susel of twelve counts of mail fraud and three counts of copyright

infringement, and specifically found Susel was in the business of receiving and selling

stolen property. Before sentencing, Susel objected to the jury’s finding, which

subjected him to an increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4),

and asserted he should receive a three-level reduction for only partially completing his

Appellate Case: 05-1227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977653
*

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

-2-

offense under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b). The district court*

 applied the § 2B1.1(b)(4)

increase, denied the § 2X1.1(b) decrease, and sentenced Susel under the mandatory

Sentencing Guidelines to fifty-one months in prison and three years of supervised

release. A few days after sentencing, the Supreme Court decided United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005) (holding Guidelines to be only advisory). The

district court held a resentencing hearing to consider Booker’s impact, and the court

decided that under advisory Sentencing Guidelines, Susel’s sentence should remain

the same. 

On appeal, Susel contends his sentence was unreasonable because his offense

was only partially completed and thus he should have received a reduction in his

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(1). Although Susel had not brought about

the full amount of loss intended by his fraudulent scheme, the fraud was a completed

substantive offense and thus the § 2X1.1(b)(1) reduction does not apply. United

States v. Carrington, 96 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Strozier, 981 F.2d

281, 285-86 (7th Cir. 1992). Susel’s contention fails even if we assume § 2X1.1(b)(1)

applies to fraud and he only partially completed his offense. According to U.S.S.G.

§ 2X1.1(b)(1), the decrease does not apply to attempts when “the circumstances

demonstrate that the defendant was about to complete all [acts necessary for

completion] but for apprehension or interruption by some . . . event beyond the

defendant’s control.” The district court found no evidence to support Susel’s theory

that the offense was not ongoing and the software seized from his apartment was not

going to be mailed. The court also found the offense would have been completed, but

for the intervention of law enforcement. The district court’s findings are not clearly

erroneous. We thus agree with its conclusion that Susel was not entitled to a reduction

in his offense level under § 2X1.1(b)(1). 

Appellate Case: 05-1227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977653
-3-

Susel also contends the district court should not have increased his offense level

by two under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4), which applies when a theft or fraud “offense

involved receiving stolen property, and the defendant was a person in the business of

receiving and selling stolen property.” Susel argues the increase only applies to

“fences,” and not to defendants who steal the property themselves, because the latter

are not in the business of “receiving” stolen property. The Government

acknowledges that other Circuits use a “fence” test, see United States v. Kimbrew, 406

F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing cases), but argues the Eighth Circuit has not

limited the increase to persons who act as fences, citing United States v. Collins, 104

F.3d 143 (8th Cir. 1997). We need not decide whether the increase applies to Susel,

see Kimbrew, 406 F.3d at 1153 n.1 (stating propriety of enhancement’s application

to defendant who had stolen the goods was not raised or explicitly addressed in

Collins), because any error in applying the increase to Susel is harmless. The §

2B1.1(b)(4) increase only affects the offense level of 22 for mail fraud, and not the

offense level of 22 for the copyright violations. Because the highest offense level

associated with the counts of conviction is applied to decide the applicable Guidelines

range, see U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(b), Susel’s Guidelines range would be the same even if

we held the increase does not apply to him. 

Pro se, Susel argues the district court improperly calculated the amount of loss

as over $400,000, the willfulness element of the copyright counts was not satisfied,

and the restitution order is excessive. We reject all three arguments. First, the district

court did not commit clear error in calculating the loss as the retail value of the stolen

property. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. note 3(C)(i) (using fair market value to calculate

loss); United States v. Russell, 913 F.2d 1288, 1292 (8th Cir. 1990) (same); U.S.S.G.

§ 2B5.3 app. note 2(A)(i)(I) (using retail value to calculate copyright loss). Second,

Susel admitted at trial that he knew the products contained copyright notices,

satisfying the willfulness element of the copyright counts. See United States v.

Manzer, 69 F.3d 222, 227 (8th Cir. 1995). Last, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in ordering restitution of $225,190.62. See id. at 229-30. This amount

Appellate Case: 05-1227 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977653
-4-

represented the retail value of the stolen software that was sold by Susel and his

roommate on eBay (amounting to lost sales to the software company of $220,813.50),

plus the software company’s administrative ($4283.52) and transportation ($93.60)

costs incurred during participation in the investigation and prosecution of the offense.

We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1227 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977653