FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 24, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 14 64 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 17 5- CR-B BM- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TACCARRA THOMAS, MESFI N TEFERA, JAR RIOUS K. MOON, ABDUL L. H OLYFIELD, MANZILA BEINVENU, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andSTROM,* Dis tri ctJu dg e. STROM, Di stric t J ud ge :

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ * Honora ble Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District J udg e for the District of Nebr aska, sitting by

designation.On Oct ob er 1 0, 2 00 6, a g ran d ju ry si tt in g i n t he Nort he rnDis tri ctof Geo rg iach arg edTho m as , Tefera, M oo n, Ho lyfiel d, Be in ve nu , andot he rs ina th irt y -fi ve co un t s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t wi th co ns pi racy to c omm itba nkfrau d i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 (“ Co un t 1 ”), m ul ti pl e co un ts of b an k fr au d i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 44 an d 2 , andm ul ti pl e co un ts of a gg rav at edid en ti ty th eftinvi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 10 28 A(a)(1 ) an d 2 . Each s ub st an ti ve co un t o f ba nkfrau d c ha rg edinth e in di ctm en t p ert ai ns to a di ffer en t b an k a cco un t. 1 Tho m as , Tefera, M oo n, Ho lyfiel d, an d B ei nv enu p le ad edno t g ui lt y an d were trie d t og ethe r in a jury tria l tha t co m m en cedon Ju ne 25 , 20 07 . On Ju ly 11, 20 07 , th e jury retu rn edgu il ty verd ic ts ag ai ns t Th om as on Co un ts 1, 1 4, 2 4, 2 6, an d 3 0; ag ai ns t Tefe ra o n C ou nt s 1 , 2, an d 2 6; ag ai ns t M oo n o n C ou nt s 1 , 2, 3 , 8, 9, 1 0, 1 1, 1 6, 1 7, 2 8, an d 2 9; ag ai ns t Ho lyfiel d o n C ou nt s 1 , 6, 7 , 12 , 13 , 24 , and 26 ; an d a ga in stBei nv enu o n C ou nt s 1 an d 8 .

The followingbank ac counts are listed in the indictment: Guil foy le Networ king, I nc. 1 (Counts 2, 3); Ox ford Interior De signs ( Counts 4, 5); MTLA Elec tric, Inc. (Counts 6, 7); B L S Plumbi ng(Counts 8, 9); Reg ina Lupoli, DBA Me tro Homes (Counts 10, 11); Nee ley Computer Service s (Counts 12, 13); St ar Remode ling ( Counts 14, 15); KP C onstruction (Counts 16, 17); A. Br ooks Plumbing Co. (Counts 18, 19); B ritt Design (Counts 20, 21); Stone Property Manag ement (Counts 22, 23); Rog ers & Associates ( Counts 24, 25); Kirk & Assoc iates (Counts 26, 27); Kate x Property

Manag ement (Counts 28, 29), L .C. Financ ial (Counts 30, 31); DeVor e Gra phics (Counts 32, 33); Mary Ford (Counts 34, 35). The e ven number ed counts represe nt charg es of ba

nk fra ud; the odd numbere d counts repr esent c harg es of a g gravated identity theft. 2Tho m as was s en te nc edto 33 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, fi ve y ears supe rv is ed rel eas e, an d o rd eredto pa y res ti tu ti on inth e am ou ntof $ 12 3,2 58 .77 to Ban k o f Am eri ca. Tefer a was sen te nc edto 24 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, thr ee years supe rv is edrel eas e, an d o rd eredto pa y res ti tu ti on of $ 68 ,27 8.5 6 t o B an k o f Am eri ca. Mo on was s en te nc edto 70 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, fi ve y ears supe rv is ed rel eas e, an d o rd eredto pa y res ti tu ti on inth e am ou ntof $ 20 1,9 18 .78 to Ban k Am eri ca. Hol y fie ldwas s en te nc edto 65 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, thr ee years supe rv is edrel eas e, an d o rd eredto pa y res ti tu ti on inth e am ou ntof $ 21 2,6 76 .40 to Ban k o f Am eri ca, an d B ei nv enu was sen te nc edto 24 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, thr ee y ears supe rv is edrel eas e, an d o rd eredto pa y res ti tu ti on inth e am ou ntof $4 9,2 94 .31 to Ban k o f Am eri ca. FACTUAL BACKGRO UND The ba nkfrau d s ch em e th atap pe ll an ts were co nv ic te d o f be in g i nv ol ve d with g en eral ly inv ol ve d fo urst ep s: (1) in di vi du al s fi le d fa ls e in co rp or at io n do cu m en ts to crea te sh el l co rp or at io ns , (2) th e fal se in co rp or at io n d oc um en ts an d 2 fal se id en ti fic at io n wer e u se d t o o pe n b us in es s ch eck in g a cco un ts at B an k o f Am eri ca, (3 ) co un te rfei t ch eck s drawnonex is ti ng Ban k o f Am eri ca l in es of c red it

The c orporations did notconduct business a nd exis ted solely

for the pur

pose of 2 committing bank f

raud. 3acco un ts were d ep os it edin to th e ch eck in g a cco un ts , and(4) fun ds were

withd rawnfro m

th e acc ou nt s b y

us in g d eb itcard s i ss ue d t o the ch eck in g a cco un ts to m ak e cas h wi th dr awal s fr om au to m at edtel le r m ach in es (“ ATM”) o r us in g d eb it card s t o p ur ch as e Uni te d S ta te s p os ta l m on ey ord ers at p os t o ffi ces . At tria l, fo urco -d efen da nt s ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t wi th ap pe ll an ts , in cl ud in g C ha rle s B ro wn, J an el le Cro sb y , Jo se ph Head , Jr., an d To ni Ly nn e Sm ith, t es ti fie d fo r th e g ov ern m en t. Headtes ti fie d t ha t Tefe ra an d a n i nd iv idua l na m edAug us ti ne Am

ua h i nt ro du cedHeadto th e id ea o f co m mit ti ng ba nkfrau d a s a way to m ak e m on ey , andAm ua h, Ho lyfiel d, an d B ei nv enu o rg an iz edth e b an k frau d s ch em e. Headfurth er t es ti fie d t ha t, Am ua h, Ho lyfiel d, an d B ei nv enu pr ov id edHead , Bro wn, an d Tef era wi th fak e id en ti fic at io n, an d B ei nv enu dro ve Headto po stoff

ic es an d g av e Headde bi t ca rd s t o p ur ch as e m on ey ord ers . On se ve ral oc cas io ns , Headsaw Ho lyfiel d a t Am uah’s re si de nc e, whe re arti cl es of in co rp or at io n, t ax id en ti fic at io n p ap ers , andfal se id en ti fic at io n wer e in pl ai n v ie w. Bro wn t es ti fie d tha t Tefe ra dro ve Bro wn t o t he ba nkto op enth e Gui lfo y le Netwo rk in g, In c. acc ou ntan d o n asec on d o ccas io n wh enBro wn d ep os it eda ch eckin to anacco un t. Bro wn t es ti fie d t ha t Tefe ra dro ve Bro wn t o c as h m on ey or de rs an d p ro vi de d B ro wn wi th fal se id en ti fic at io n. Sm it h t es ti fie d tha t Th om as in st ru ct edSm it h o n h ow t o o pe n t he L.C. Fin an ci al acco un t, p ro vi de d S m it h wi th 4do cu m en ts to op enth e acc ou nt , anddro ve Sm ith t o t he ba nkto op enth e acc ou nt .

Acco rd in g t o S m it h, Th om as st at edth atsh e h adop en edsi m il ar b an k a cco un ts be fo re. Tefer a an d Th om as tes ti fie d o n the ir o wn b eh al f. Mo on was e m

pl oyed atBan k o f Am eri ca. Dur in g aBan k o f Am eri ca in ve st ig at io n, M oo n was id en ti fie d a s an em pl oyee who ha d a cces se d s om e o f th e ba nkacco un ts un de r in ve st ig at io n. Ba nkin ve st ig at or s i nt erv ie wedMo on , anda ba nkin ve st ig at ortes ti fie d tha t M oo n a dm it te d dur in g t he in te rv ie w th athe acce ss edacco un t i nf

orm at io n. Acco rd in g t o t he ba nkin ve st ig at or , Mo on st at ed th athe was app ro ach edby ind iv idua ls who pro m is edto gi ve Mo ona Mer ced es Ben z if Mo on pro vi de d l in es of c red itacco un t i nf orm at io n t o t he in di vi du al s. A po st al in sp ect ortes ti fie d t ha t M oo n m ad e si m il ar s ta te m en ts to he r du rin g a subs eque ntin te rv ie w, anddu rin g t ha t i nt erv ie w, Moo n i de nt ifi eda pi ctur e o f Am ua h a s b ei ng on e o f th e in di vi du al s t o wh om he pro vi de d a cco un t i nf

orm at io n. Cro sb y tes ti fie d t ha t o n o ne oc cas io n M oo n a gr eedto acce pta co un te rfei t ch eck fo r de po si t fr om

Cro sb y an d S m it h. Cr os by tes ti fie d t ha t s he an d S mit h a tt em pt ed to de po si t the ch eckat d iff eren t b an k l oc at io ns , bu t the ba nk s re jecte d t he de po si t. Howev er, Mo on ag reedto acce ptth e d ep os itaft er h e was co nt act edby Am ua h.

5IS SUES

The ap pe ll an ts ass ertsev eral is su es on ap pe al . W e ad dr es s the fol lo win g is su es : (1 ) ap pe ll an ts ’ Bat so n c ha ll en ge , (2) th e ad m is si onof Do ug la s R os s’ te st im on y , and(3) is su es reg ard in g t he cal cu la ti on of M oo n’s s en te nc e. W e h av e co ns id eredth e o th er i ss ue s as se rte d b y ap pe ll an ts bu t fi ndth em to be witho ut m eri t. STANDARDS OF REVIE W Whe n re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s re so lu ti on of aBat so n c ha ll en ge , we gi ve “ gr eatde fere nc e to a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g a s t o t he ex is te nc e o f a p rima faci e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . All en -Bro wn, 2 43 F.3d12 93 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 01 )(quo ti ng Cen t. Al a. Fai r Hou s. Ct r., Inc . v. Lowd er Re al ty Co., 23 6 F .3d 62 9, 6 35 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ))(i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e wil l n otdi sturb a d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g a s t o wh y a juro r was ex cu se d “ un le ss itis cle arl y erro ne ou s o r ap pe ars to ha ve be engu id edby im pr op er p rin ci pl es of l aw.” Id . at 12 97 (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 9 36 F.2d12 43 , 12 46 (11 th Cir . 19 91 )). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 4 15 F.3d12 57 , 12 64 -6 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “An ab us e o f di sc ret io n c anoc cu r whe re the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie s the wron g l aw, fo ll ows th e

6wro ng pro cedur e, ba se s i ts de ci si on on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r co m

m it s a c le ar erro r injud gm en t.” Id . at 1 26 6. W it h re ga rdto sen te nc in g d et erm in at io ns , we rev ie w a di stric t co urt’s fin di ng th ata de fen da ntus edso ph is ti cat edm ean s fo r cl ear e rro r. Ro be rts on , 49 3 F.3 d a t 1 32 9- 30 . W e al so rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er a de fen da ntqu al ifi es fora min orrol e ad jus tm en t fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ro dr ig ue z De Varo n, 1 75 F.3d93 0, 9 34 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )(en ba nc ). “ A factua l fin di ng is cle arl y

erro ne ou s ‘when alt ho ug h the re i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, the rev ie win g c ou rt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.’” Ro be rts on , 49 3 F .3dat 1 33 0 (quo ti ng And ers onv. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 3 (1 98 5) )(i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . DISCUSS IO N 1. Ba ts on Chal le ng e Hol y fie ldcla im s the di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d wh enitde te rm in edth e go ve rn m en t p ro ffer edleg it im at e rac e an d g en de r ne ut ral reas on s fo r it s ex erci se d pe rem pt ory ch al le ng es . Duri ng jury se le ct io n, the go ve rn m en t s tru ck fiv e whi te 3

Thomas and B einvenu join in Holyfield’s B atson appe al. 3 7wom en , andHol y fie ldass ert eda “ rev ers e Bat so n ob jecti on ” o n ra ce an d g en de r 4 gr ou nd s as to fou r of

th e fi ve juro rs . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti on as 5 to all fou r juro rs . The us e o f pe rem

pt ory ch al le ng es so le ly on t he ba si s o f a p ot en ti al juro r’s race or g en de r vi ol at es equa l p ro te ct io n p rin ci pl es of t he Fif thAm en dm en t. See Bat so n, 4 76 U.S. at 8 9; see Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste el e, 17 8 F .3d12 30 , 12 35 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ); s ee Un it edSta te s v . Rod rique z, 91 7 F .2d12 86 , 12 88 n. 2 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ), va cat edinpa rt o n o th er g ro un ds by rehea rin g, 9 35 F.2d19 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) .

“ The Bat so n t hr ee-s te p p ro cedur e fo r ev al ua ti ng anob jecti on to a pe rem

pt ory ch al le ng e is as f

ol lo ws: (1) th e o bjec to r m us t m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng th atth e pe rem pt ory ch al le ng e is ex erci se d o n t he ba si s o f rac e [o r ge nd er]; (2 ) th e b ur de n th ensh ift s t o t he ch al le ng er t o a rti cu la te a race -n eu tra l [a ndge nd er-n eu tra l] ex pl an at io n fo r st rik in g t he juro rs inqu es ti on ; an d (3 ) th e tr ia l co urt m us t de te rm in e whe th er the ob jecto r ha s ca rri edit s b ur de n o f pr ov in g p ur po se fu l di sc riminat io n.” All en -Bro wn, 2 43 F.3dat 1 29 7. The go ve rn m en t cl ai m s the re was no pri m a fac ie sh owi ng of r aci al di sc riminat io n. To de te rm in e whe th er a p rima facie cas e h as be enest ab li sh ed , Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 4 Holyfield conc eded at trial that the g overnme nt had valid re asons for strikingthe fifth 5 juror. 8“ th e tr ia l co urt s ho ul d c on si de r al l re le va ntcir cu m st an ces .” Bat so n, 4 76 U.S. at

96 . A “pa tt ern ” o f st rik es ag ai ns t juro rs of apa rti cu la r rac e o r ge nd er i n t he ve ni re m ig htgi ve ris e to anin fere nc e o f di sc riminat io n. Se e id . at 9 6- 97 . W e as su m e fo r pu rp os es of t hi s ap pe al th atHol y fie ldm ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng of p ur po se fu l di sc riminat io n. Aft er s tri ke s fo r cau se , sev enwhi te wom enrem ai ne d o n t he ve ni re, an d t he go ve rn m en t u se d fi ve of i ts sev enpe rem pt ory ch al le ng es to strik e whi te wom en . R-4 80 at 1 31 , 13 6. Not withs ta nd in g, Ho lyfiel d fa il edto pro ve pu rp os efu l d is cri m in at io n. Th e go ve rn m en t s at is fie d i ts bu rd enun de r th e se co ndst ep of t he Bat so n fr am ewo rkby pr of feri ng race -n eu tra l an d g en de r-n eu tra l re as on s fo r th e co nt es te d s tri ke s. Th e go ve rn m en t s ta te d i t s tru ck po te nt ia l juro rs , Ms . Leseran d M s. Gerb er, b ecau se th ey in di cat eddu rin g v oi r di re tha t the y m ig htqu es ti on th e v erac ity of a co op erat in g c o- de fen da nt ’s tes ti m on y , itstru ckMs . Dorfm anbe cau se sh e h ad 6 be enth e v ic ti m

of c red itcardfrau d c omm it te d b y he r so n’s fr ie nd , anditstru ck Ms . Cha st ai n b ecau se sh e h ada pr ev io us ba d e xp eri en ce wi thth e p os ta l s erv ic e. Duringvoir dire, the g overnme nt asked the f ollowing que stion: “I f a c o-def endant in this 6 case who has pled guilty

and is testify

ing in hope s of re ceivingmore fa vorable treatment on his or her case , testifies, is there a

ny body who would not believe the testimony of – we often c all them cooper atingdefe ndants simply beca use that per son is ex pectingto ga in some benef it for their testimony

in their own pendingsentenc ing he aring ? ” R-480 at 84- 85. Ms. Gerbe r responde d: “I

might have some question about that,” a nd Ms. L eser

stated: “I would question it.” I d. at 85. 9Bec au se th e g ov ern m en t p ro ffer edne ut ral ex pl an at io ns , th e o nl y rem ai ni ng qu es ti on forth e d is tri ctco urt was whet he r Hol y fie ldcarr ie d h is bu rd eninpro vi ng pu rp os efu l d is cri m in at io n. To an swe r th is qu es ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt was requi red to ass es s the cred ib il ity

of t he go ve rn m en t’s ex pl an at io ns . Mil le r-El v. Co ckrel l, 53 7 U.S. 3 22 , 33 8- 39 (20 03 ). The d is tri ctco urt g av e Hol y fie ldth e o pp ortu ni ty to res po ndto th e g ov ern m en t’s ex pl an at io ns be fo re i t ru le d o n t he Bat so n o bjec ti on s. Hol y fie ldarg ue d b el ow, as he do es onap pe al , th atth e g ov ern m en t’s re as on s wer e pr et ex ts for

in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n. With reg ardto po te nt ia l juro rs Ms . Leser an d M s. Gerb er, Ho lyfiel d c la im edth e g ov ern m en t’s ex pl an at io n c ou ldno t withs ta ndco ns ti tu ti on al scrut in y be cau se th e juro rs m erel y st at edth atth ey

wou ld do whatth e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e wou ldul ti m at el y in st ru ctth em

to do . The di stric t co urt d idno t fi ndHol y fie ld ’s arg um en ts pe rs ua si ve , no r do we. Pro se cu to rs are en ti tl edto strik e p ot en ti al juro rs foran y co ns ti tu ti on al ly val id reas on , andth e g ov ern m en t’s re as on s wer e supp orte d b y th e fac ts of t hi s ca se . Fu rth er, Ho lyfiel d h as no t i de nt ifi edan yth in g abo utth e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s ca se whi chwou ldsu gg es t the go ve rn m en t wo ul d wan t t o i nt en ti on al ly prev en t wh it e wom enfro m

be in g s eat edon th e jury. Inli gh t o f th e fac ts of thi s ca se an d the de fere nc e we acc or d adi stric t co urt wh enitm ak es cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , we do no t fi ndth e d is tri cterre d wh enitov erru le d Ho lyfiel d’s Ba ts on ob jecti on s. 102. Admis si on of Ro ss ’ Tes timony

Tho m as , Hol y fie ld , andTeferaarg ue th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n whe n i t p erm it te d Do ug la s R os s t o t es ti fy as alay witn es s an d a dm it te d sp read sh eet s p rep aredby Ros s as reco rd s o f reg ul arl y co nduc te d a ct iv it y . W e fi nd Ro ss ’ sp read sh eet s an d c orres po nd in g t es ti m on y was i na dm is si bl e h ears ay an d adm is si on of s uc h t es ti m on y was a n abu se of d is cret io n. Th us , we do no t re ach th e is su e o f whe th er Ro ss ’ te st im on y was e xp erttes ti m on y . The go ve rn m en t o ffer edRo ss ’ te st im on y to pro ve th atsp eci fic ba nkacco un t de bi t ca rd s wer e u se d t o p ur ch as e sp eci fic po st al m on ey ord ers . Ros s p rep ared sp read sh eet s tha t i de nt ifi edwhi chpo st al m on ey ord ers were p ur ch as edwith a pa rti cu la r de bi t card . Ros s o bt ai ne d i nf orm at io n c on ta in edinth e sp read sh eet s fro m a da taba se cal le d S URDA, whi chhe he lp edto crea te when he work edas a co nt ract or

forth e p os t o ffi ce. SURDA co ll ect s an d s to res two types of in fo rm at io n: (1) in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g m on ey ord ers so ldat p os t o ffi ces acro ss th e co un try, inc lu di ng th e d at e o f th e tr an sa ct io n, the lo cat io n o f th e p os t o ffi ce wh ere th e tr an sa ct io n o ccu rred , andth e cl erkwho co nduc te d the tra ns act io n, an d (2 ) in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g d eb itan d c red itcardtra ns act io ns forpo st al m on ey ord er pu rch as es , in cl ud in g t he da te of t he tra ns act io n, the lo cat io n o f th e p os t o ffi ce whe re the tra ns act io n o ccu rred , andth e cl erkwho co nduc te d t he tra ns act io n. 11SURDA rece iv es th is in fo rm at io n v iaele ctro ni c fee ds fro m th e fi na nc ia l ap pl ic at io n t ha t the po st al servi ce u se s an d a n e xt ern al co m pa ny tha t co ns ol id at es de bi t tran sa ct io ns for

th e p os ta l s erv ic e. To i de nt ify whic h p os ta l m on ey ord ers were p ur ch as edwith apa rti cu la r de bi t ca rd , Ros s m at ch edde bi t ca rdin fo rm at io n an d p os ta l m on ey

ord er i nf orm at io n c on ta in edinSURDA an d a dd edth e p ur ch as e am ou nt s o f co ns ecu ti ve ly num be redm on ey

ord ers . Ros s p ers on al ly creat edth e sp read sh eet s t o re fle cthi s fi nd in gs . Ove r de fen se he ars ay

ob jecti on s, the di st ric t co urt ad mit te d t he sp read sh eet s pr ep aredby Ros s as reco rd s o f reg ul arl y co nduc te d b us in es s ac ti vi ty. The d is tri ct co urt d et erm in edRo ss was apro pe r wit ne ss to tes ti fy ab ou t the fou nd at io n fo r th e sp read sh eet s. Fu rth er, the di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i nf orm at io n c on ta in edin th e sp read sh eet s co ns ti tu te d p os t o ffi ce b us in es s re co rd s, an d t he sp read sh eet s were ad mis si bl e as a “ da taco m pi la ti on ” o f po stoff

ic e b us in es s re co rd s p ur su an t t o Ru le 80 3( 6) . Rul e 8 03 (6 ) st at es th e fo ll owi ng is no t ex cl ud edby the he ars ay rul e, ev enth ou gh th e d ecl aran t i s av ai labl e as a witne ss :

Rec or ds of r eg ul arl y

co nduc te d a ct iv it y . A m em or an du m , rep ort, re co rd , or d at a co m pi la ti on , in an y form , of a ct s, ev en ts , con di ti on s, o pi ni on s, ordi ag no se s, m ad e ator n ear t he ti m e b y , or fr om in fo rm at io n t ran sm it te d b y , a pe rs onwith kn owl ed ge , if k ep t i n t he co ur se of areg ul arl y co nduc te d b us in es s ac ti vi ty, an d i f itwas t he 12reg ul ar p ract ic e o f th atbu si ne ss act iv ity to m ak e th e m em or an du m , rep ort, re co rdor d at a co m pi la ti on , all as s ho wn b y

th e te st im on y

of t he cu st od ian o r othe r qu al ifi edwitne ss , or b y cert ifi cat io n t ha t co m

pl ie s wi th Ru le 90 2( 11 ), Ru le 90 2( 12 ), ora st atut e p erm it ti ng cert ifi cat io n, un le ss th e so ur ce o f in fo rm at io n o r th e m etho d o r ci rcu m st an ces of p rep arat io n i nd ic at e la ckof tru st worth in es s. . . .

“ Ru le 80 3( 6) requi res th atbo th th e und erl y in g re co rd s an d t he rep ort s umm ari zi ng th os e rec or ds be pre pa redan d m ai nt ai ne d fo r bu si ne ss pu rp os es inth e o rd in ary co ur se of b us in es s an d n otforpu rp os es of l it ig at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Aria s- Izqui erd o, 4 49 F.3d11 68 , 11 83 -8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . The di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitadm it te d t he sp read sh eet s be cau se so m e o f th e und erl y in g re co rd s d idno t co ns ti tu te po stoff ic e b us in es s reco rd s, an d t he sp read sh eet s wer e p rep aredforth is li ti ga ti on . Debi t ca rd in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinRo ss ’ sp read sh eet s was no t cr eat edby Ros s, Ro ss ’ co m pa ny, or th e p os t o ffi ce. In st ead , th e in fo rm at io n was ori gi na ll y crea te d b y ba nk s, tran sm it te d t o ath ird -p arty who co ns ol id at edth e in fo rm at io n, an d t he n tra ns mit te d t o S URDA by a nig ht ly elect ro ni c fee d. Ro ss di d n otkn ow h ow the th ird -p arty

crea te d o r m ai nt ai ne d t he in fo rm at io n. Ev enif re co rd s co nt ai ne d i n SURDA co ns ti tu te d p os t o ffi ce b us in es s re co rd s, the reco rd s wer e th e res ul t o f m ul ti pl e le ve ls of h ears ay

for whi chth ere was no fou nd at io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v .

13Bu en o- Si erra , 99 F.3d37 5, 3 79 n. 1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (Ru le 80 3( 6) do es no t

el im in at e d oubl e h ears ay pro bl em s) . Mo reo ve r, th e sp read sh eet s wer e n otadm is si bl e as a da taco m pi la ti on un de r Ru le 80 3( 6) . Ros s cr eat edth e sp read sh eet s s pe ci fic al ly for the in ve st ig at io n o f th is cas e, an d the sp read sh eet s wer e n otsi m pl e co m pu te r pr in to ut s o f SURDA reco rd s. In st ead , Ros s p ers on al ly creat edth e sp read sh eet s af te r an al y zi ng an d reo rg an iz in g i nf

orm at io n h e ret rie ve d fr om SURDA. The g ov ern m en t d idno t of fer t he un de rlyin g S URDA reco rd s i nt o e vi de nc e o r gi ve op po si ng co un se l the op po rtu ni ty to i ns pe ctsu chreco rd s. Th e ad m is si on of R os s’ sp read sh eet s an d co rres po nd in g t es ti m on y

was a n abu se of d is cret io n. Not withs ta nd in g, ev id en ti ary erro rs are n otgro un ds forrev ers al “un le ss th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth ey affe ct edth e d efen da nt 's s ub st an ti al rig ht s; wher e anerro r ha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby errorsupp orts th e v erd ic t, re ve rs al is no t warran te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Arbo la ez, 4 50 F.3d12 83 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )(quo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hawk in s, 9 05 F.2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Cir .19 90 )). As t o a ll of Tef era’s an d Th om as ’ co nv ic ti on s we h av e n o h es it at io n i n fi nd in g R os s’ tes ti m on y was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. With reg ardto Hol y fie ld , Ros s’ tes ti m on y was harm le ss as t o Ho lyfiel d’s co nv ic ti on s fo r Co un ts 1, 6 , 7, 1 2, an d 1 3, b ut 14Ro ss ’ te st im on y was re ve rs ib le erro r as to Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns forCo un ts 24 an d 2 6. Ro ss ’ te st im on y

was h arm le ss as t o Tef

era’s co nv ic ti on s. Th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Tefe ra i nc lu de d the fol lo win g: Headtes ti fie d Tef era i nt ro du cedHeadto th e id ea o f co m

m it ti ng ba nkfrau d, Br own tes ti fie d Tef era dro ve Bro wn t o t he ba nkto op enth e Gui lfo y le acco un t an d Tef era was pre se ntwhenBro wn o pe ne d th e acc ou nt , andTeferates ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t kno w abo utor p art ic ip at e in th e ba nkfrau d s ch em e. By

tes ti fy in g a ndde nyin g kno wled ge or p art ic ip at io n i n t he ba nkfrau d s ch em e, Teferaim pl ie dl y de ni edgu il t as to all of t he co un ts forwhi ch he was c on vi ct ed . The jury was e nt it le d t o c on cl ud e th e o pp os it e o f Tefer a’s te st im on y was t ru e an d c on si de r th e o pp os it e o f th e te st im on y as s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f Tefer a’s gu il t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 5 3 F .3d31 2, 3 14 (11 th Ci r. 19 95 ). Whe n the st at edev id en ce i s v ie wedinli gh t o f supp orti ng ev id en ce i n th e rec or d, the re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt Tef era’s co nv ic ti on s o n Co un ts 1, 2 , and26 witho utRo ss ’ te st im on y . All of Tef era’s co nv ic ti on s ar e 7 affi rm ed .

Tefe ra summarily

asser ts a Confrontation Clause argument. In acc ordanc e with our 7 findingthat Ross’ testimony was ha rmless err or, any

Confrontation Clause violation does not justify reve rsal of Te fer a’s c onvictions. See Dela war e v. Va

n Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)( Confrontation Clause is subject to harmless e rror analy sis). 15Ro ss ’ te st im on y was h arm le ss as t o Th om as ’ co nv ic ti on s. Th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Th om as in cl ud edth e fo ll owi ng : Sm it h t es ti fie d t ha t Th om as ga ve Sm it h do cu m en ts to op enth e L.C. Fin an ci al ba nkacco un t, i ns tru ct edSm it h o n h ow t o op enth e acc ou nt , anddro ve Sm it h t o t he ba nkto op enth e acc ou nt , Cro sb y id en ti fie d S m it h i n aba nkph ot og rap h, wh ic h s ho ws the in di vi du al de po si ti ng a ch eckdra wn o n aBan k o f Am eri ca cu st om er’s acc ou ntin to th e Ro ge rs & Ass oc ia te s b an k a cco un t, an d Th om as tes ti fie d tha t s he di d n otkn ow ab ou t o r pa rti ci pa te inth e b an k fr au d s ch em e an d d en ie d d ep os it in g t he ch eckin to th e Ro ge rs & Ass oc ia te s ac co un t. Lik e Tefer a, Tho m as ’ te st im on y im pl ie d tha t s he de ni edgu il t as to all of t he co un ts for whi chsh e was co nv ic te d; th e jury was en ti tl edto co nc lu de th e o pp os it e. Whe n t he for eg oi ng ev id en ce i s v ie wedinli gh t of supp orti ng ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt Tho m as ’ co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 1 , 14 , 24 , 26 , and30 witho utRo ss ’ te st im on y . Tho m as arg ue s h er co nv ic ti on onCo un t 2 4 m us t b e rev ers edbe cau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t fu nd s d ep os it edin to th e acc ou ntwere u naut ho riz ed . This cl ai m is witho utm eri t. Tho m as tes ti fie d t ha t s he was n otth e in di vi du al sh own in a b an k p ho to gr ap h d ep os it in g ach eckdra wn o n M r. Rafa ’s Ban k o f Am eri ca acco un t i nt o t he Ro ge rs & Ass oc ia te s ac co un t. The jury was en ti tl edto co nc lu de th e o pp os it e. Inad di ti on , a ba nkin ve st ig at or tes ti fie d wi th ou t o bjec ti on th atno ne 16of

th e ch eckvi ct im s h e ta lk edto du rin g t he co ur se of h is in ve st ig at io n aut ho riz ed an y of t he de po si te d c he ck s, an d s pe ci fic al ly, Mr. Ra fa d idno t i ss ue th e ch eck de po si te d i nt o t he Ro ge rs & Ass oc ia te s ac co un t. R-4 81 at 2 72 , 28 6. Acco rd in gl y , al l o f Tho m as ’ co nv ic ti on s ar e aff irmed. Ro ss ’ te st im on y

was h arm le ss as t o Ho lyfiel d’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 1 , 6, 7, 1 2, an d 1 3, an d R os s’ tes ti m on y was re ve rs ib le erro r as to Hol y fie ld ’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 2 4 a nd26 . The ev id en ce ag ai ns t Ho lyfiel d i nc lu de d the fo ll owi ng : Hea d’s t es ti m on y th atHol y fie ldwas o ne of t he org an iz ers of the ba nk frau d s ch em e who pro vi de d fa ke id en ti fic at io n t o c o- co ns pi rat or s, an d Hea d s aw Hol y fie ldat Am

uah’s re si de nc e o n s ev eral oc cas io ns , evi de nc e th atHol y fie ldus ed a d eb itcardis su edto th e MTLA Elec tri c, In c. acc ou ntto withd raw m on ey fro m an ATM, ev id en ce tha t Ho lyfiel d u se d ade bi t ca rdis su edto th e Neel ey Co m pu te r Serv ic es acco un t an d a n i de nt ifi cat io n wi th Eric Nee le y ’s nam e an d Ho lyfiel d’s pi ctur e to m ak e a p ur ch as e atW or ldof Whee ls , evi de nc e th atEric Nee le y ’s id en ti ty w as us edto co m

mitba nkfrau d o n t he Neel ey Co m pu te r Serv ic es acco un t, an d e vi de nc e th atth e id en ti ty of Pet er Cr an st on was s to le n b y Mo on an d u se d t o crea te a co un te rfei t ch eckde po si te d i nt o t he MTLA Elect ric , Inc . acco un t. The to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce wi th ou t Ro ss ’ te st im on y supp orts Hol y fie ld ’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 1 , 6, 7 , 12 , and13 . Hol y fie ldarg ue s h is ba nkfrau d 17co nv ic ti on s ca nn otst an d b ecau se th e o nl y ev id en ce o f hi s i nv ol ve m en t i nv ol ve d hi s re cei ptof f

rau du le ntfun ds . Hol y fie ldcla im s the cri m e o f ba nkfrau d was co m pl et e atth e ti m e th atco un te rfei t ch eck s wer e d ep os it edin to th e b an k a cco un ts , an d t he refo re, Ho lyfiel d’s re cei ptof f un ds fro m

th e acc ou nt s d idno t ai d a ndab et th e co m mis si on of t he ba nkfrau d. We agre e th atba nkfrau d was co m pl et e atth e ti m e th atch eck s wer e d ep os it edin to th e b an k a cco un ts with the in te ntto ev en tu al ly w it hd raw the fun ds forpe rs on al us e. See Un it edSta te s v . Greg g, 1 79 F.3 d 1 31 2, 1 31 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Notwiths ta nd in g, the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce supp orts Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns . Bas edon tes ti m on y th atHol y fie ldorg an iz edth e ba nkfrau d s ch em e an d g en eral ly part ic ip at edby pro vi di ng fak e id en ti fic at io n, an y reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t Ho lyfiel d re cei ve d fu nd s fr om th e MTLA Elect ric , Inc . andNeel ey Co m pu te r Serv ic es acco un ts be cau se Hol y fie ld ai de d a ndab et te d b an k fr au d fo r th es e acc ou nt s. We affirm Hol y fie ld ’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 1 , 6, 7 , 12 , and13 . Howev er, we can no t s ay

th atRo ss ’ te st im on y

was h arm le ss as t o Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns forCo un ts 24 an d 2 6. Un li ke Teferaan d Th om as , Hol y fie lddi d n ottes ti fy . The o nl y ev id en ce tha t s pe ci fic al ly lin ke d Ho lyfiel d t o th e b an k a cco un ts ch arg edinCo un ts 24 an d 2 6 re gard edev id en ce tha t Ho lyfiel d us edm on ey

ord ers purch as edwith fu nd s fr om th e acc ou nt s. With ou t Ro ss ’ 18te st im on y , th ere was no way to li nkth e p os ta l m on ey

ord ers to sp eci fic fun ds or sp eci fic bankacco un ts . W e rev ers e Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts 24 an d 2 6. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng , all of Tef era’s an d Th om as ’ co nv ic ti on s ar e affi rm ed . Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts 1, 6 , 7, 1 2, an d 1 3 a re af firm ed , and Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts 24 an d 2 6 a re re ve rs ed . W e rem an d fo r rese nt en ci ng of Ho lyfiel d a cco rd in gl y . 3. Mo on ’s Sente nce Mo on cla im s the di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d wh eniten ha nc edMo on ’s se nt en ce fo r so ph is ti cat ed -m ean s an d fa il edto ap pl y a m it ig at in g- ro le reduc ti on . Mo on arg ue s h is co nduc t d idno t i nv ol ve so ph is ti cat ed -m ean s b ecau se he m erel y pr ov id edcu st om er ac co un t i nf orm at io n t o o th er i nd iv idua ls inex ch an ge for pa ym en t, an d t he re was no ev id en ce tha t h e kne w th e co -d efen da nt s o r th e b read th of th e co -d efen da nt s’ con du ct . Furt he r, Mo onco nt en ds he was e nt it le d t o a m it ig at in g- ro le reduc ti on be cau se hi s co nduc t was no t i ns tru m en ta l t o t he ba nk frau d, h e was les s cu lp ab le th anhi s co -d efen da nt s, an d h e was th e le as t co m pe ns at edco -d efen da nt . Pu rs uantto th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Boo ke r, 54 3 U.S. 22 0, 2 64 (20 05 ), th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es are n o l on ge r m an da to ry . Altho ug h t he Gui de li ne s ar e o nl y advi so ry , a di st ric t co urt m us t ca lc ul at e th e 19advi so ry

sen te nc in g ra ng e co rrec tl y an d m us t co ns id er i t wh ende te rm in in g a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Crawfo rd , 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 78 -7 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). The Gui de li ne s s ta te th attwo lev el s ar e ad de d t o ade fen dant ’s bas e o ffen se le ve l i f th e o ffen se in vo lv ed“ so ph is ti cat edm ean s.” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(9 )(C) . So ph is ti cat edm ean s i s d efi ne d a s:

es pe ci al ly com

pl ex or e sp eci al ly int ric at e o ffen se co nduc t p ert ai ni ng to th e ex ecu ti onor c on ceal m en t of anoff en se . Forex am

pl e, in a te le m ark et in g sc he m e, lo cat in g t he m ai n o ffi ce o f th e sc he m e in on e juri sd ic ti on bu t l oc at in g s ol ic it in g o pe rat io ns in an ot he r juri sd ic ti on ord in ari ly ind ic at es so ph is ti cat edm ean s. Co nduc t s uc h a s h id in g a ss et s ortra ns act io ns , or b ot h, thr ou gh th e u se of fic ti ti ou s en ti ti es , cor

po rat e sh el ls , or o ffs ho re fin an ci al acco un ts als o o rd in ari ly ind ic at es so ph is ti cat edm ean s. U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m

m en t. (n .8(B )). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err wh enitin crea se d M oo n’s of fen se lev el forso ph is ti cat edm ean s. Fo rem os t, Mo on ’s rol e in pro vi di ng acco un t i nf

orm at io n was cri ti cal to th e b an k fr au d s ch em e fo r th e acc ou nt s M oo n was he ldacco un tabl e fo r. Noton ly didMo on pro vi de ne ces sa ry cu st om er ac co un t in fo rm at io n t o h is co -co ns pi rat or s, b utth e ev id en ce fu rth er i nd ic at es th atMo on in te nt io na ll y

sel ect eddo rm an t ac co un ts th atha d s ub st an ti al li ne s o f cre di t. 20Mo on ’s cla im th athe di d n otkn ow h is co -co ns pi rat or s wer e u si ng th e acc ou nt in fo rm at io n t o c omm itba nkfrau d i s u na va il in g. Mo on so ldth e in fo rm at io n i n ex ch an ge fora pr om is edMerc ed es Ben z. Inad di ti on , onat l eas t o ne oc cas io n, Mo on acce pt eda co un te rfei t ch eckforde po si t fr om co -co ns pi rat or s Sm it h a nd Cro sb y aft er o th er b an k t el le rs reject edth e d ep os it . The ev id en ce i nd ic at es Mo on kn ew th e ch eckwas c ou nt erfe itwhen he acce pt edth e d ep os it . In l ig htof t he so ph is ti cat edna tu re o f th e o ve ral l s ch em e an d M oo n’s u naut ho riz edus e o f cu st om er b an k a cco un t i nf orm at io n, we ar e n otlef

t wi th a “ de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on ” th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d am is ta ke when iten hanc edMo on ’s se nt en ce fo r so ph is ti cat edm ean s. See Ro be rts on , 49 3 F .3dat 1 33 0. Nordo we fin d t he di st ric t co urt cl earl y erre d wh enitfai le d t o app ly a m it ig at in g- ro le reduc ti on to Mo on ’s sen te nc e. A def en dantbe ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g h e p la y eda m in orrol e in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Ro dr ig ue z De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 39 . A defe nd an t’s o ffen se lev el m ay be reduc edif the de fen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se “ m ak es hi m subs tant ia ll y

les s cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e p art ic ip an t.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 , comm en t. (n .3(A) ). To rece iv e a two- le ve l m in or -ro le reduc ti on , th e d efen da ntm us t p ro ve he is les s cu lp ab le th an“ m os t o th er p art ic ip an ts .” Id ., comm en t. (n .5). To de te rm in e whe th er the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto a m it ig at in g ro le -reduc ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt 21m

us t co ns id er two fa ct or s: (1) th e d efen da nt ’s rol e co m pa redwith the rel ev an t co nduc t fo r whi chhe was h el d a cco un tabl e atsen te nc in g, an d (2 ) th e d efen da nt ’s ro le co m pa redwith t he rol e o f ot he r parti ci pa nt s i n t he rel ev an t co nduc t. Ro dr ig ue z De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 45 . As d is cu ss edab ov e, Mo on ’s rol e in th is cas e was ess en ti al to th e b an k fr au d fo r th e co un ts Mo on was h el d a cco un tabl e fo r, an d o n a t l eas t o ne oc cas io n, Mo on ’s parti ci pa ti on in cl ud edacce pt in g aco un te rfei t ch eckfor de po si t. Mo on ’s arg um en t tha t cu st om er i nf orm at io n was ob ta in edth ro ug h o th er m ean s i s n ot supp orte d b y

th e rec or d wi th reg ardto th e co un ts Mo on was h el d a cco un tabl e fo r. Altho ug h M oo n was ap pa ren tl y th e le as t co m

pe ns at edco -co ns pi rat or , he i ni ti al ly pr ov id edcu st om er ac co un t i nf orm at io n u nd er the ass um pt io n t ha t h e wou ld rece iv e a Me rced es Ben z as pa ym en t. Du e to th e n eces si ty of Mo on ’s rol e in co m pr om is in g t he ba nkacco un ts , hi s kno wled ge of the co ns pi racy, andMo on ’s ex pe ct edco m

pe ns at io n, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n d en y in g M oo n a m it ig at in g- ro le reduc ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Mo on ’s sen te nc e. CONCLUSI ON Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns on Co un ts 24 an d 2 6 a re re ve rs ed ; the rem ai nd er o f Hol y fie ld ’s con vi ct io ns are af firm ed . W e rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g o f Hol y fie ld

22acco rd in gl y . W e aff irm th e co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es of Th om as , Tefera, M oo n, an d B ei nv enu.

23