Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-13-14365/USCOURTS-ca11-13-14365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jean Mari Lindor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14365

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-10010-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JEAN MARI LINDOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 22, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 1 of 10
2

Jean Mari Lindor appeals his sentence of 286 months of imprisonment 

following his convictions for 26 counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, nine 

counts of wire fraud, id. § 1343, three counts of access device fraud, id.

§ 1029(a)(2), (b)(1), and two counts of aggravated identity theft, id. § 1028A(a)(1), 

(c)(5). Lindor challenges the determination that he intended to cause a loss of more 

than $7 million by submitting false claims for disaster relief, and he challenges the

reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Lindor’s charges stemmed from his operation of Noula, Inc., which he

incorporated as not for profit, but operated as for profit by charging customers 

$300 to submit fraudulent claims to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility for losses

attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Investigators traced numerous

fraudulent claims to Lindor based on his signature on paperwork and his

submission of virtually identical employment verification letters, fabricated 

paystubs, and hardship statements with his email address. Lindor filed 1,074 

fraudulent claims requesting more than $14 million, and the Claims Facility paid 

$1,994,680. Lindor also filed a personal claim for disaster unemployment relief 

and submitted an employment verification letter and paystubs representing that he 

had been employed in 2010, but later Lindor filed an application for naturalization 

in which he disclosed that his employment had ended in 2009. The paystubs that 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 2 of 10
3

Lindor submitted with his personal claim were similar to and shared the same 

sequence of check numbers as the paystubs purportedly issued by different 

employers to Noula’s claimants. Investigators also discovered that Lindor had 

applied for and collected $13,525 in unemployment benefits by misrepresenting 

that he had been laid off from his job because of the oil spill.

When arrested, Lindor had two debit cards in his pockets containing tax 

refunds issued by Turbo Tax to two persons whose social security numbers Lindor 

used to file fraudulent tax returns for 2012. Investigators also discovered copies of 

the two fraudulent tax returns on Lindor’s computer. An examination of Lindor’s

bank account revealed that he also had received tax refunds issued to two other 

persons. The four fraudulent tax returns resulted in a loss of $8,567.

A jury found Lindor guilty of all the crimes charged. Lindor’s presentence 

investigation report classified his 26 counts of mail fraud, 3 counts of wire fraud, 

and 3 counts of access device fraud as one group related to the false claims 

submitted to the Claims Facility, and the report classified Lindor’s remaining 6 

counts of wire fraud as a second group related to his fraudulent claims for 

unemployment benefits. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2 

(Nov. 2012). For group one, the report increased Lindor’s base offense level by 20 

levels for a loss amount between $7 and $20 million, id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K), and

added another two levels because Lindor obstructed justice by testifying falsely

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 3 of 10
4

that the fraud was committed by a former employee who was an ordained minister 

and by a cousin who resembled Lindor, despite testimony from Lindor’s father that 

the cousin had not left Haiti in 18 years, id. § 3C1.1. For group two, the report 

increased Lindor’s base offense level by 4 levels for a loss amount between 

$10,000 and $30,000. Id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C). The two groups had a combined 

adjusted offense level of 33.

With a criminal history under category I, the report provided an advisory 

guideline range between 135 and 168 months of imprisonment. The report also 

provided that Lindor faced a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years for each 

count of mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a maximum statutory 

sentence of 10 years for each count of access device fraud, id. § 1029(a)(2), 

(c)(1)(A)(i). The report excluded Lindor’s two convictions for aggravated identity 

theft from the groupings, U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(b)(2), and the report provided that 

Lindor faced a mandatory a two-year sentence for each conviction and that the 

sentences had to run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2).

Lindor objected to the presentence report on three grounds relevant to this 

appeal. First, he challenged the 20-level increase of his base offense level and 

argued that he did not cause any loss because he was innocent and, alternatively, 

that the loss amount was less than $2 million. Second, Lindor denied making 1,074 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 4 of 10
5

false claims and argued that anyone could have used the Noula email address; the 

presentence report failed to identify each fraudulent claim or to describe how he 

was connected to each claim; and another Noula employee submitted fraudulent

claims without his knowledge. Third, Lindor argued that he was only an employee 

of Noula.

Lindor moved for a downward variance from his advisory guideline range. 

Lindor argued that he did not profit from his fraud because the donations to Noula 

aided people displaced by the oil spill and because there was no proof that he 

received a percentage of the disaster relief paid to the claimants. Lindor also 

argued that he was out of the office when some of the false claims were submitted. 

The government presented evidence that Lindor was responsible for 430 

fraudulent claims for disaster relief. Four persons testified that their personal 

identification information was used without their knowledge in fraudulent claims 

submitted by Noula. Robert Passero, a fraud analyst, testified about evaluating two 

years of payroll data corresponding to 430 client files found on Lindor’s computer

and creating spreadsheets that matched data in those files to fraudulent claims 

submitted to and paid by the Claims Facility. Passero testified that the client files 

had virtually identical supporting documents consisting of a “canned hardship 

letter, a canned verification of employment letter, . . . [and] copies of maps of the 

Gulf of Mexico and newspaper articles related to the oil spill”; that the names of 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 5 of 10
6

the employers and amounts of paystubs on the fraudulent claims matched the data 

on Lindor’s computer; that some of the claimants names had been written on signin sheets found in Noula records; and that the fraudulent claims were all based on 

income lost from one of six companies, all of which denied employing any of the 

claimants. Passero explained that 80 of the claims sought approximately $2.4 

million in losses; he extrapolated that amount to determine the loss attributable to

other claims; and he eliminated some questionable claims, which resulted in a 

reduction of the loss amount from more than $14 million to $12,764,081. Passero 

also explained that some of the fraudulent claims had been submitted electronically 

using the internet protocol address assigned to Noula and that the trial testimony of

a cohort proved that Lindor submitted other claims by connecting his computer to 

the internet at the cohort’s apartment. To match data on fraudulent claims 

submitted before Lindor stored data on his computer, Passero matched payroll 

documents to the paystubs issued by Lindor’s employer in 2009. Passero also 

compiled a list of checks written by Lindor on a Noula account to refund 

unsuccessful claimants, and between 20 and 25 percent of the checks were written 

for $300.

The district court overruled Lindor’s objections. The district court found that 

the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Lindor intended to 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 6 of 10
7

cause a loss of more than $7 million. The district court also found that the 430 false 

claims resulted in a loss of $12,764,081.

The district court sentenced Lindor to 286 months of imprisonment based on 

his “history and characteristics”; the circumstances of his complex and “longrunning scheme” that involved large amounts of people, claims, and money; the 

“significant . . . societal harm” caused by “divert[ing] [money] away from those it 

was intended to help”; and the need to “discourage others who” might engage in 

similar fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court imposed concurrent 

sentences of 168 months for each of Lindor’s mail and wire fraud offenses and 

sentenced him to 94 months for each count of access device fraud with instructions 

that those sentences run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the

sentences for mail and wire fraud. The district court also sentenced Lindor to 24 

months for each count of aggravated identity theft and ordered that those sentences 

run concurrently with each other and consecutively to his other sentences. 

According to the district court, it “imposed the top of the guideline range for [the]

counts” of mail and wire fraud, “varied upward to impose a consecutive sentence” 

for the counts of access device fraud, and “imposed the mandatory consecutive 

sentence” for the counts of aggravated identity theft.

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 7 of 10
8

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Two standards of review govern this appeal. We review for clear error a 

finding about the amount of loss. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1197 

(11th Cir. 2011). We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential 

standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 

586, 597 (2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Lindor challenges his sentence on three grounds. First, he argues that the 

government failed to prove that he was responsible for 430 fraudulent claims and 

that the district court failed to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss. 

Second, Lindor argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the 

district court failed to give notice of or explain the reason for its upward variance. 

Third, Lindor argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he 

was punished for “proceed[ing] to trial and testify[ing] on his own behalf.” These 

arguments fail.

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Lindor intended to 

inflict a loss of more than $7 million. Lindor controlled Noula’s operations and 

was responsible for all the false claims filed in furtherance of his scheme to 

defraud the Claims Facility. See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1256 

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 310 (2014). Lindor counseled claimants and 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 8 of 10
9

submitted numerous fraudulent claims for disaster relief using employment 

documents and paystubs that he fabricated. At sentencing, Passero explained how 

he connected the client data stored on Lindor’s computer to 430 fraudulent claims 

and how he calculated the amount of loss. Passero provided a spreadsheet that 

described each fraudulent claim for disaster unemployment relief, its amount, and 

whether the claim had been paid by the Claims Facility. Although Lindor was not 

indicted for all the fraudulent claims for disaster relief, the uncharged claims 

constituted relevant conduct, see United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316, 1336 

(11th Cir. 2006), and the district court could consider that conduct in making a 

reasonable estimate of the loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). Based on this

reliable and specific evidence, the district court was entitled to find that Lindor was 

responsible for 430 fraudulent claims seeking $12,764,081 in disaster relief. See 

United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1290–92 (11th Cir. 2011). The district 

court did not clearly err by enhancing Lindor’s base offense level by 20 levels for 

intending to cause a loss between $7 million and $20 million. See U.S.S.G. § 

2B1.1(b)(1)(K).

Lindor’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The district court “varied 

upward” by exercising its discretion to order that Lindor’s multiple terms of 

imprisonment run consecutively, see 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), and Lindor was not 

entitled to notice that he might receive consecutive sentences. See Irizarry v. 

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 9 of 10
10

United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714–16, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 2202–04 (2008). And the 

district court complied with its duty to consider the statutory sentencing factors in 

determining whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. See id.

§ 3584(b).

Lindor’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. Lindor submitted 

hundreds of fraudulent claims for disaster relief to the Claims Facility with the 

intent to defraud British Petroleum of millions of dollars. Lindor also fraudulently 

obtained thousands of dollars in federal tax refunds and state unemployment 

benefits. Lindor argues that he was impermissibly punished for exercising his right 

to stand trial, but the district court explained that its sentence was intended to 

achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. And the district court reasonably 

determined that a sentence of 286 months of imprisonment was required to address 

the extent of Lindor’s fraud and the harm caused to the public by his diversion of 

disaster relief, to impose adequate punishment for his crimes, to affirm the public 

trust in assistance programs, and to deter similar future misconduct. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM Lindor’s sentence.

USCA11 Case: 13-14365 Date Filed: 05/22/2015 Page: 10 of 10