# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 24 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Kim be rly Jo hn so n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 26 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Nko si Gray

,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 3, 2 01 5
Fil ed : J ul y

31 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

, Kim be rly Jo hn so n an d Nko si Gray were each co nv ic te d

of on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m fo r a ta x refu nd

, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 28 7.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Jo hn so n to 48 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t a n d G r a y to 60 1

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Jo hn so n ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce

su pp or ti ng he r co nv ic ti on

. Gray ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d un de r th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es in cal cu la ti ng th e in te nd ed am ou nt of

lo ss an d in ap pl y in g an in crea se fo r an of fen se th at in vo lv es so ph is ti cat ed m ean s. W e

affi rm

.

I.

Jo hn so n an d Gray were co nv ic te d in rel at io n to a ta x frau d sc h e me r u n by

Geral d Po y nt er. Po y

nt er’s sc he m e was kn own as an Orig in al Is su e Dis co un t sc he m e. Orig in al Is su e Dis co un t fo rm s (“ OID” fo rm s, fo r sh or t) are ta x fo rm s d e s i gn ed to

rep or t an in di vi d ua l’s in te res t in co m e de riv ed fro m in ve st m en ts su ch as m un ic ip al

bo nd s an d cert ifi cat es of de po si t. In an OID sc he m e, fil ers fal se ly li st la rg e am ou nt s

of OID in co m e an d c or res po nd in g larg e am ou nt s of with ho ld in g. In st ead of l is ti ng

act ua l OID in co m e, th e fil ers li st de bt

, in cl ud in g cred it card de bt s an d mo r t ga ge s.

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Th e f

il ers al so fal se ly rep res en t th at a la rg e am ou nt of th ei r OID in co m e was

wit hh el d, an d t he y

th us cla im

th at th ey are en ti tl ed to lar ge tax refu nd s.

Po y nt er pr om ot ed th e sc he m e th ro ug h co nf eren ce cal ls an d se m in ars th at he

he ld acro ss th e co un try. In Decem be r 20 08

, Jo hn so n at te nd ed on e of th es e se m in ars

at a ho te l i n At la nt a, Geo rg ia , wher e Po y nt er gav e a p res en ta ti on ou tl in in g t he OID

pr oc es s. On Feb ru ary 10

, 20 09

, Jo hn so n si gn ed a co nt ract wit h Po y nt er, in whi ch sh e

ag reed to se rv e as on e of hi s “ br an ch m an ag ers ” or “ affi li at es .” As a br an ch m an ag er,

Jo hn so n was ta sk ed wit h recr ui ti ng cl ie nt s who were in te res te d in Po y nt er’s ta x

se rv ic es

.

Jo hn so n’s co nt ract wit h Po y nt er ga ve he r t h e rig ht to se t he r fee wit h each

cl ie nt

, bu t sh e was req ui red to pa y hi m fif ty p e r c e n t o f t h at fee. The co nt ract al so

in cl ud ed se ve ral di sc la im ers , in cl ud in g a st at em en t th at th e m at eri al pr ov id ed by

Po y nt er was no t le ga l or ta x ad vi ce, bu t in st ead was in te nd e d f or ed uc at io na l an d

in fo rm at io na l pu rp os es

. By si gn in g th e co nt ract

, Jo hn so n ag reed th at sh e was no t an

ag en t o f an y

go ve rn m en t ag en cy , in cl ud in g t he IRS.

One of th e cl ie nt s who m Jo hn so n recr ui te d whi le wor ki ng as a br an ch m an ag er

fo r Po y nt er was Mar ia n Fi ne -Ken ne dy. In Mar ch 20 09

, Fi ne -Ken ne dy se nt Jo hn so n

a $5 00 m on e y o r d e r to st art th e pr oc es s. Befo re pr ov id in g he r se rv ic es , Jo hn so n

req ui red Fi ne -Ken ne dy to s ig n a co nt ract th at co nt ai ne d a no n- di sc lo su re p ro vi si on

an d li st e d a $2 0 m il li on pe na lt y fo r di sc lo su re. The ag reem en t al so req ui red Fi ne

Ken ne dy to c ert ify tha t s he was n ot affi li at ed wit h a ny go ve rn m en t ag en cy

.

Fi ne -Ken ne dy se nt Jo hn so n he r fin an ci al in fo rm at io n, an d Jo hn so n co m pl et ed

Fi ne -Ken ne dy’ s ret ur n fo r th e 20 08 ta x y ear. On Fi ne -Ke n n e dy’ s 20 08 ret ur n,

Jo hn so n st at ed th at th e ta xp ay er ha d earn ed $8 9,6 05 in OID in co m e, th at $8 7,4 92 was

wit hh el d, an d t h a t Fi ne -Ken ne dy was en ti tl ed to a $6 1,9 59 refu nd

. In real it y , ho wev er, Fi ne -Ken ne dy was un em plo y ed in 2008 an d re cei ve d on ly di sa bi li ty in co m e

-3

-in th e am ou nt of $2 2,5 00

, no ne of whi ch was wit hh el d in ta xe s. Jo hn so n se nt pa rt of

Fi ne -Ken ne dy’ s pr ep ared ta x ret ur n to Fi ne -Ken ne dy, who m ai le d it to th e IRS. The

rem ai ni ng po rti on of Fi ne -Ken ne dy’ s ret ur n was su bm it te d to th e go ve rn m en t ei th er by Jo hn so n or by an ot he r on e of Po y nt er’s as so ci at es

. The IRS is su ed Fi ne -Ken ne dy

a refu nd in th e am ou nt of $6 1,9 59

. Fi ne -Ken n e d y pa id Jo hn so n $4 11 7 fo r he r

se rv ic es by dep os it in g t he pa y m en t i n a th ird pa rty’ s b an k a cco un t.

Gray was al so on e of Po y nt er’s cl ie nt s. On Octo be r 3, 20 08

, Po y nt er su bm it te d
Gray ’s 20 07 pe rs on al ta x r e t u rn , li st in g in co m e of $4 01 ,06 8 an d wit hh ol di ng of

$4 01 ,06 7, an d req ue st in g a refu nd of $2 83 ,88 8. Two week s la te r, th e IRS de po si te d

a $2 78 ,87 4 refu nd in Gray ’s ba nk acco un t, and Gray pa id Po y nt er a fee of $1 5,0 00

. Gray th en pr oc eed ed to fil e ad di t i o n a l f rau du le nt ta x ret ur ns fo r ot he r ta x y ears

se ek in g m or e ref

un ds

.

I n S e p te m

be r 20 11

, aft er Po y nt er’s sc he m e was un co ve red

, fo ur te e n

de fe n d a n t s , i nc lu di ng Jo hn so n an d Gray

, were in di ct ed by a gr an d jury fo r th ei r

act iv it ie s rel at ed to Po y nt er’s sc he m e. Jo hn so n was ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of

co ns pi racy to c om m it tax frau d an d ni ne co un ts of m ak in g, an d a id in g a nd ab et ti ng

th e m ak in g of

, a fal se cl ai m up on th e Uni te d St at es

. Gray was ch arg ed wit h on e

co un t of co ns pi racy to co m m it ta x frau d, ba se d on th e 20 07 ta x ret ur n, an d on e co un t

of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m to th e Uni te d St at es an d a i d i n g a n d ab et ti ng th e sa m e.

Jo hn so n a nd Gray

pro ceed ed to tri al

.

At tri al

, Jo hn so n ad m it te d th at whi le wor ki ng as a br an ch m an ag er fo r Po y nt er,

sh e pr ep ared he r cl ie nt s’ OID ret ur ns , in cl ud in g Fi ne -Ken ne dy’ s 20 08 ta x ret ur n. Bu t

Jo hn so n al so te st ifi ed th at sh e be li ev ed th at Po y nt er’s m et ho d of fil in g ta x ret ur ns was

a v al id pro ces s.

Gray di d no t te st ify at tri al

, bu t in an Aug us t 20 10 in te rv ie w wit h an IRS ag en t,
Gray ad m it te d th at he co nt in ue d fil in g ad di ti on al OID ta x ret ur ns , ev en aft er he was

-4

-“ bo m

ba rd ed ” wit h fri vo lo us -fi li ng le tt ers fro m th e IRS. The go ve rn m en t al so

pr od uc ed ev id en ce th at on Mar ch 6, 20 09

, Gray fo rward ed Po y nt er an e-m ai l warn in g

hi m th at th e Dep art m en t of Ju st ic e was aware of th e OID sc he m e. Gray co nt in ue d to

fil e fal se ret ur ns aft er s en di ng Po y nt er t he warn in g e -m ai l.

At the cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s ca se , th e di st ric t cou rt di sm is se d fou r of th e

n in e su bs ta nt iv e co un ts ag ai ns t Jo hn so n on th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, bu t de n i e d

Jo hn so n’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al as to th e ot he rs

. The jury co nv ic te d Gray

o f on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m , an d fo un d hi m no t gu il ty of co ns p i r a c y t o

co m m it ta x frau d. The jury co nv ic te d Jo hn so n on on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m ,

an d acq ui tt ed he r on fo ur ot he r su bs ta nt iv e co un ts an d on co ns pi racy to co m m it ta x

frau d. Aft er s en te nc in g a nd jud gm en t, b ot h J oh ns on an d Gra y ap pe al

.

II.

J o h n so n arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t he r co nv ic ti on

. W e rev ie w Jo hn so n’s ch al le ng e de no vo , co ns tru i n g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t. W e wil l rev ers e Jo hn so n’s co nv ic ti on on ly if no rat io na l jury

co ul d fin d he r gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le d o u b t

. Uni te d St at es v. Ji ra k

, 72 8 F.3 d

80 6, 8 11 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

Jo hn so n fir st arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at sh e was th e

bu t-f or cau se of su bm it ti ng th e frau du le nt ret ur n t o th e go ve rn m en t. Bec au se Fi ne

Ken ne dy rev ie wed th e ret ur n, si gn ed it

, an d m ai le d it to th e IRS, kn owi ng th a t he r

cl ai m was frau du le nt

, Jo hn so n co nt en ds th at Fi ne -Ken ne dy—no t Jo hn so n— was th e

bu t-f or cau se of t he fil in g o f th e fra ud ul en t re tu rn

.

The go ve rn m en t pr os ecu te d Jo hn so n on a th eo ry th at sh e cau se d Fi ne -Ken ne dy

to ta ke an act th at wou ld ha ve be en an of fen se if pe rfo rm ed by Jo hn so n he rs el f. Se e

18 U.S.C. § 2( b)

. The of fen se o f m ak in g a fal se cl ai m up on th e Uni te d St at es

-5

-req ui red pr oo f th at a pe rs on m ad e or pr es en te d a cl ai m to th e In te rn al Rev en ue

Serv ic e, kn owi ng th at th e cl ai m was fal se , fic ti ti ou s, or frau du le nt

. 18 U.S.C. § 28 7;

se e Uni te d St at es v. Mil le r , 72 8 F.3 d 76 8, 77 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). In th is cas e, th e jury

was in st ru ct ed th at th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th at “ Jo hn so n cau s e d t o be m ad e to

th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e a cl ai m fo r a ta x refu nd .” The in st ru ct io ns ex pl ai ne d

th at “ [a] p ers on m ak es a cl ai m ag a i n s t t h e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e whe n sh e fil es

or su bm it s, o r c a u s e s t o be fil ed or su bm it te d, a ta x ret ur n req ue st in g a refu nd of

wit hh el d i nc om e ta x, ei th er fo r he rs el f or for ot he r pe rs on s.”

Tha t Fi ne -Ken ne dy ph y si cal ly m ai le d th e ret ur n an d al so kn ew ab ou t th e

frau du le nt sc he m e d o e s no t pr ecl ud e a fin di ng th at Jo hn so n cau se d th e fil in g.

Jo hn so n ad m it te d th at Fi ne -Ken ne dy w a s he r cl ie nt an d th at sh e pr ep ared Fi ne

Ken ne dy’ s frau du le nt ta x ret ur n. Jo hn so n acce pt ed pa y m en t fro m Fi ne -Ken ne dy fo r

th e co m pl et io n of he r frau du le nt ta x ret ur n. Jo hn so n kn ew th at Fi ne -Ken ne dy wou ld

su bm it th e ret ur n to th e go ve r n men t fo r a refu nd

. Eve n th ou gh Fi ne -Ken ne dy

ul ti m at el y su bm it te d th e fal se ret ur n to th e IRS, th e jury co ul d st il l fin d th at Jo hn so n

cau se d th e su bm is si on of a fal se st at em en t th ro ug h an in te rm ed ia ry

. Uni te d St at es v.

Heb eka

, 89 F.3 d 27 9, 28 3- 84 (6 th Ci r. 19 96 ); Uni te d St at es v. Blec ker

, 65 7 F.2 d 62 9,

63 1- 34 (4 th Ci r. 19 81 ). Fi ne -Ken ne dy’s a c t o f su bm it ti ng th e ret ur n to th e

go ve rn m en t “ was cl earl y unde rs too d an d fo res een ” by Jo hn so n whe n sh e pr ep ared th e

fal se ret ur n, an d a reas on a b l e jury th us co ul d fin d th at Jo hn so n “ cau se d” th e ret ur n

to be pr es en te d wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 2( b)

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mur ph

, 70 7 F.2 d

89 5, 8 96 (6t h C ir. 1 98 3) (pe r cu ria m ).

Jo hn so n al so arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at sh e kn ew th e ta x

ret ur n sh e pr ep ared fo r Fi ne -Ken ne dy co nt ai ne d fal se in fo rm at io n. Jo hn so n te st ifi ed

at tri al th at sh e di d no t fu ll y un de rs ta nd Po y nt er’s ta x refu n d p r o c e ss , bu t th at sh e

tru st ed P o yn te r be cau se sh e be li ev ed he ha d la wy ers an d acco un ta nt s ad vi si ng hi m

an d en su rin g th at th e pr oc es s was le gi t im at e. One of Jo hn so n’s fo rm er cl ie nt s al so

te st ifi ed th at he th ou gh t Jo hn so n was un aware of th e il le ga li ty of Po y nt er’s sc he m e:

-6

-“ I to ta ll y th in k th at [J oh ns on ] was , y ou kn ow, sh e di dn ’t real iz e th is was a[n ] il le ga l

pr oc es s in m

y op in io n. I th in k sh e was vi ct im iz ed jus t li ke we were.

. . . I m ean , sh e

be li ev ed it wit h al l of he r he art

, I be li ev e.” Jo hn so n arg ue s th at th is te st im on y sh ows

sh e d id no t h av e th e req ui si te kn owl ed ge to be co nv ic te d.

Kno wled ge m ay be pr ov ed by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, an d w e b e l i ev e a

reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d th at Jo hn so n acte d kn owi ng ly. Jo hn so n adm it te d

kn owi ng , whe n sh e pr ep ared ta x ret ur ns fo r cl ie nt s, th at th e in fo rm at io n en te red was

de bt in fo rm at io n, rat he r th an in co m e in fo rm at io n. Jo hn so n li st ed th e de bt

in fo rm at io n in a sp ace id en ti fie d as “ ta xa bl e in te res t,” an d sh e al so fal se ly st at ed th at

su bs ta nt ia l po rti o n s of th e fal se in co m e ha d be en wit hh el d. Alt ho ug h fin an ci al

in fo rm at io n th at Fi ne -Ken ne dy ga ve Jo hn so n fo r 20 08 s h o w e d in co m e of on ly

$2 2,5 00 fro m di sa bi li ty pa y m en ts an d no wit hh ol di ng , Jo hn so n pr ep ared a ta x ret ur n

cl ai m in g $8 9,6 05 in in te res t in co m e, $8 7,4 92 in wi t h h o ld in g, an d en ti tl em en t to a

refu nd of $ 61 ,95 9.

Non e of th e in fo rm at io n or do cu m en ta ti on th at Fi ne -Ken ne dy pr ov id ed to

Jo hn so n co ul d ha ve su pp or te d th e am ou nt s th at Jo hn so n cl ai m ed on Fi ne -Ken ne dy’ s

ta x ret ur n. A r eas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve in ferr ed fro m th is fact th at J o h n s on kn ew

th at th e in fo rm at io n sh e e n t e r e d in to th e ret ur n was fal se

. Se e Mil le r , 72 8 F.3 d at

77 4- 75 ; Uni te d St at es v. Cl ar k

, 57 7 F.3 d 27 3, 28 6 (5 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Jo hn so n cl ai m ed

t h a t s he act ed ou t of a ge nu in e be li ef th at he r act io ns were le ga l, bu t th e jury h ear d

he r t e st im on y an d ap pa ren tl y di d no t be li ev e it

. A reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve

di sb el ie ve d Jo hn so n or co nc lu de d th at he r be li ef was so un reas on ab le th at it di d no t

co ns ti tu te a jus ti fia bl e ex cu se fo r he r co nd uc t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Rif en , 57 7 F.2d

1 1 1 1

, 11 13 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (p er cu ria m ). W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e ev id e n c e

was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in th e v erd ic t.

-7

-III.

Gray ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t on th e gr ou nd th at

th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng th e to ta l in te nd ed ta x lo ss

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s at se nt en ci ng fo r cl ear erro r, an d we wil l affi rm th e d is tri ct

co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on “ un le ss it is no t su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, was ba se d

on an erro ne ou s vi ew of th e la w, or th e a p p e l la te co ur t ha s a fir m co nv ic ti on th at

th ere was a m is ta ke aft er rev ie win g th e en ti re reco rd .” Uni te d St at es v. Th ei mer , 55 7

F.3 d 5 76 , 57 8 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

“ [L]oss ” is de fin ed a s “t h e g r e at er of act ua l lo ss or in te nd ed lo ss .” USSG
§ 2B 1.1

, co m

m en t. (n .3(A) ). “ ‘A ct ua l lo ss ’ m ean s th e reas on ab ly fo res eeab le

pe cu ni ary h arm th at res ul te d fro m th e of fe n s e .” Id

. § 2B 1.1 , c om m en t. (n .3(A) (i) ).

“ ‘Int e n d e d l o ss ’ . . . m ean s th e pe cu ni ary h arm th at was in te nd ed to res ul t fro m th e

of fen se ,” in cl ud in g “ pe cu ni ary ha rm th at wou ld ha ve be en im po ss ib le or un li ke ly to

oc cu r.” Id

. § 2B 1.1

, co m

m en t. (n .3(A) (ii )). Und er USSG § 2T1 .1(c )( 4 )

, “ [i]f th e

of fen se in vo lv ed im

pr op erl y cl ai m in g a refu nd to whi ch th e cl ai m an t was no t en ti tl ed

, th e t ax lo ss is th e am ou nt of th e cl ai m ed refu nd to whi ch th e cl ai m an t was no t

en ti tl ed .” If th e of

fen se in vo lv ed a frau du le nt or fal se ret ur n, “ th e ta x lo ss is th e to ta l

am ou nt of lo ss th at was t h e o b je c t of th e of

fen se (i.e

., th e lo ss th at wou ld ha ve

res ul te d h ad th e o ffen se be en su cces sf ul ly com pl et ed ).” Id

. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 1)

.

At t ria l, t he go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th at Gray su bm it te d e le ve n fa ls e

fil in gs to th e IRS cl ai m in g refu nd s fo r th e ta x y ears 20 05 th ro ug h 20 08

. He fil ed an

or ig in al ret ur n and an am en de d retu rn fo r 20 05

, an or ig in al ret ur n an d two id en ti cal

am en de d re tur

ns— sent to di ffer en t IRS pr oc es si ng cen te rs —fo r 20 06

, an d an or ig in al

ret ur n an d two am en de d ret ur ns fil ed on di ffer en t da te s fo r 20 08

. The pr ob at io n

of fic e cal cu la te d th e in te nd ed lo ss fro m Gray ’s of fen se s by ad di ng to ge th er th e refu nd

am ou nt s th at Gray cl ai m ed on each of th es e el ev en fil in gs

. The rep or t cal cu la te d an

in te nd ed lo ss of $1 ,53 7,8 97 an d a n a c t u a l lo ss of $2 78 ,87 4. Bec au se th e in te nd ed

-8

-lo ss was gr eat e r t h a n th e act ua l lo ss , th e pr ob at io n of fic e reco m

m en de d a lo ss of

$1 ,53 7,8 97

, whi ch co rres po nd ed to a ba se of fen se le ve l of 22

. Se e USSG § 2T4 .1(I ).

Gray ob jecte d to th e in cl us io n of m ul ti pl e ret ur ns fo r an y gi ve n y ear in th e lo ss

cal cu la ti on

. Acco rd in g to Gray

, an in di vi du al who f i l e s a n am en de d ret ur n is no t

in te nd in g to rece iv e d ou bl e ref un ds be cau se th e am en de d ret ur n is in te nd ed to ta ke

th e pl ace of th e or ig in al ret ur n. He th eref or e arg ue d th at on ly th e m os t rece nt ret ur n

th at he fil ed fo r an y gi ve n y ear sh ou ld be i n c lu de d in th e in te nd ed lo ss cal cu la ti on

. G r a y al so ob

jecte d to th e in cl us io n of two am en de d ret ur ns th at he su bmi t t e d t o

di ffer en t IRS lo cat io ns fo r t h e 20 06 ta x y ear. Gray arg ue d th at he fil ed du pl ic at e

ret ur ns be cau se he w a s un su re of whe re to se nd th em , an d th at on ly on e of th es e

a m en de d ret ur ns sh ou ld be co un te d in th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la t i o n

. Th e

di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Gray ’s ob jecti on s an d ad op t e d t he pr ob at io n of fic e’s

reco m m en da ti on

.

On ap pe al

, Gray rai se s th e sa m e ob jecti on s to th e di s t r i c t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on

of in te nd ed lo ss

. He ack no wled ge s in te nd ed lo ss of $7 53 ,20 5, whi ch co rres po nd s to

ba se of fen se le ve l 20

, bu t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y e r r e d b y c o u nt in g

m ul ti pl e ret ur ns for cert ai n t ax y ears an d i nc reas in g t he ba se off en se lev el to 22

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e an ex pr es s fin di ng th at Gray in te nd ed to ob ta in

m ul ti pl e refu nd s fo r ta x y ears 20 05

, 20 06

, an d 20 08

, bu t we in fer fro m th e reco rd th at

th e co ur t m ad e th e req ui si te su bs id ia ry fin di ng th a t G r ay in te nd ed to rece iv e th e

refu nd s cl ai m ed in al l el ev en fil in gs

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Pat te rs on , 94 6 F.2 d 13 71

, 13 72 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 )

. W e do no t be li ev e th at th e fin di ng is cl earl y erro ne ou s. Gray

in te nd ed to ob ta in frau du le nt refu nd s fro m th e go ve rn m en t, an d it was reas on ab le to

in fer t h a t he in te nd ed to m ax im iz e th e am ou nt pr oc ur ed

. Tha t Gray se nt di ffer en t

am en de d ret ur ns to di ffer en t lo cat io ns fo r ta x y ear 20 06 su pp or ts an in fere nc e th at he

ho pe d th e go ve r n men t wou ld m is ta ke nl y pa y twi ce. Alt ho ug h th e IRS, of co ur se , do es no t pa y m or e th an on e refu nd pe r y ear as a m at te r of po li cy , Gray ’s pu rp os e was

-9

-to co m

m it frau d, an d h is in te nt was n ot co ns tra in ed by IRS pra ct ic e in de al in g wi th

an ho ne st ta xp ay er. W he th er or no t Gray was li ke ly to su ccee d in ob ta in in g refu nd s

ba se d on m

ul ti pl e ret ur ns fil ed fo r a si ng le ta x y ear, he is st il l res po ns ib le fo r an y

fal se ret ur n he su bm it te d to th e IRS wit h th e in te nt to ob ta in th e am ou nt req ue st ed in

th at ret ur n.

Gray al so ch al le ng es th e d i s t r i c t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a two -le ve l sp eci fic

of fen se ch arac te ris ti c un de r USSG § 2T1 .1(b ) ( 2 ) f or an of fen se th at “ in vo lv ed

so ph is ti cat ed m ean s.” In ex pl ai ni ng it s ap pl ic at io n of th e ad jus tm en t, th e d i s t r i ct

co ur t fo un d th at Gray “ pa rti ci pa te d in th e sc he m e an d th e co nc eal m en t of th e of fen se ,

an d t ha t i t was co m

pl ex an d i nt ric at e.”

Gray arg ue s th e fin di ng is cl earl y erro ne ou s be cau se he us ed hi s real na m e an d

ad dr es s on hi s ta x ret ur ns , fil ed nu m ero us ret ur ns wit h t h e I RS, reg ul arl y

co rres po nd ed wit h th e IRS vi a e-m ai l and let te rs , an d in no way at te m pt ed to sh ie ld

hi s id en ti ty. Gray al so arg ue s th at hi s acq ui tt al on th e co ns pi racy ch arg e sh ows th at

th e jury di d no t cred it hi m w i t h a n y so ph is ti cat io n or pa rti ci pa ti on in th e la rg er

sc he m e o f whi ch hi s s ub st an ti ve off en se was a pa rt.

The so ph is ti cat ed m ean s en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s to “ es pe ci al ly co m pl ex or

es pe ci al ly in tri cat e of

fen se co nd uc t pe rta in in g to th e ex ecu ti on or co nc eal m en t of an

of fen se .” USSG 2T1 .1, co m m en t. (n .5). It is de si gn ed fo r a de fen da nt who se co nd uc t

was m or e in tri cat e th an th at of th e “ ga rd en -v ari et y ” of fen de r. Uni te d St at es v. Han ce , 50 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Fio ri to

, 64 0 F.3 d 33 8

, 35 1
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ Eve n i f a n y s i ng le st ep is no t co m pl ic at ed

, rep et it iv e an d

co or di na te d co nd uc t can am ou nt to a so ph is ti cat ed sc he m e.” Uni te d St at es v. Bis tr up , 44 9 F .3d 87 3, 8 82 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Gray su bm it te d el ev en fal se fil in gs to th e IRS. He su bm it te d fal se ba ck gr ou nd

do cu m en ts to th e IRS to bo ls te r hi s cl ai m s fo r ta x refu nd s, an d he warn ed Po y nt er vi a

-1 0-e-m ai l to al er t hi m th at th e Dep art m en t of Ju st ic e was aware of th e OID ta x frau d

sc he m e. The reco rd su pp or ts a fin di ng , b y a p r e p o nd eran ce of th e ev id en ce, th at
Gray ’s co nd u c t w a s r e p et it iv e an d m or e in tri cat e th an th at of a ga rd en -v ari et y ta x

of fen de r. Tha t Gray was acq ui tt ed on th e co ns pi racy ch arg e di d n o t p r e c lu de th e

di st ric t co ur t fro m co ns id eri ng co nd uc t be y on d th e si ng le co un t of co nv ic ti on , as lo ng

as it was pr ov ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. W ha tl ey , 13 3

F.3 d 60 1, 6 06 (8t h C ir. 1 99 8) . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t

cl earl y err i n a pp lying § 2 T1.1 (b )(2 ).

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t ar e aff irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-