Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06425/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06425-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert James Bruning
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 12 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT JAMES BRUNING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6425 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-89-194-P) 

June E. Tyhurst, Assistant Federal Public Defender, of Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for the Defendant-Appellant. 

Timothy D. Leonard, United States Attorney, and John E. Green, 

First Assistant United States Attorney, of Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for the Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-6425 Document: 01019844412 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant Robert Bruning appeals his sentence under u.s.s.G. 

section 2B5.l(b)(2) for passing counterfeit notes. We affirm. 1 

Bruning pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly passing 

counterfeit $100 United States Reserve Notes in violation of 18 

u.s.c. section 472. At the sentencing hearing the district court 

expressly found by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

defendant was in possession of a color office copier, green ink, 

and other materials used in manufacturing the counterfeit notes. 

Based on the proffered testimony of federal agent Leon Bevers that 

approximately $11,000 worth of the counterfeit notes had been 

passed in the metropolitan Oklahoma City area during the summer of 

1989, the district court also found that the notes were not so 

obviously counterfeit that they would be unlikely to be accepted 

even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. Relying upon these 

findings, the district court applied U.S.S.G. section 2B5.l(b)(2): 

If the defendant manufactured or produced any 

counterfeit obligation or security of the United States, 

or possessed or had custody of or control over a 

counterfeiting device or materials used for 

counterfeiting, and the offense level as determined 

above is less than 15, increase to 15. 

The defendant contends that application note 3 to section 

2B5.1 prohibits the district court from applying subsection 

(b)(2): 

3. Subsection (b)(2) does not apply. to persons who 

merely photocopy notes or otherwise produce items that 

are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to 

be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6425 Document: 01019844412 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 2 
The defendant argues that we should read application note 3 

as excluding from subsection (b)(2) all persons who produce 

counterfeit notes by photocopying. We reject the defendant's 

proposed reading of application note 3 because it would protect 

even the most successful counterfeiters from the enhanced 

penalties of subsection (b)(2) based solely on the method of 

production, photocopying. We read application note 3 as excluding 

from subsection (b)(2) those defendants who produce notes, by 

photocopying or other means, that "are so obviously counterfeit 

that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only 

minimal scrutiny." Our interpretation of application note three 

is consistent with the purpose behind the enhanced penalties of 

subsection (b)(2). "Possession of counterfeiting devices to copy 

obligations (including securities) of the United States is treated 

as an aggravated form of counterfeiting because of the 

sophistication and planning involved in manufacturing counterfeit 

obligations and the public policy interest in protecting the 

integrity of government obligations." U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1, comment. 

(backg'd.). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6425 Document: 01019844412 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 3