NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION Fi le Name: 07a 0093n.0 6 Fi led : Febr uar

y 6, 2007 No. 05- 6832 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. JAM ES H . M ASTER S, Defendant -A ppel lan t. / On ap p e a l from the Uni ted S tates District Court for t he Middle District of Tennessee

BEF OR E: RY

AN , BATCH ELD ER , and SU TTON, C ircui t J udg es. RYA N, Ci rc u itJu d ge
. Jam es H. Masters cha l l en ges his senten ce for credit card fraud, in v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . § 1029( a) (2 ), and for mak ing fals e sta te m e n ts and
re present ati ons in an appl ic ation f o r Social Sec ur ity benefit s, in v iol ati on of 42 U .S.C . § 408( a) (2 ). M ast ers o bje cte d to the d istri ct c our t’ s tw o- lev el enhanc ement for us e of “soph isticated me ans” pursuan t to U .S.S .G. § 2B1 .1(b)(9)(C). W e f ind that t h e d is t rict
cour t did not commi t cl ear er ro r by appl y ing the “s ophi sti cat ed means” enhanc ement an d therefore affir m it s j udg ment. I. Masters la u n c hed his credit card f raud schem e by consulting library referen ce mater ial s, suc h as a “W ho’ s W ho” book, to obtai n i nformati on on ind iv idu als w it h names similar to his own. Using this informa tion, he procu red a nu mb er of docu me nts un der false names, i ncl udi ng an I ndi ana bi rt h c erti ficat e, c re ditrepor ts, a docu m e n t f rom the S oci al(N o. 05 -6 832) - 2 -

Secu ri t y A d mi n i s t ra t i o n , a n d m u l t i p l e c re d i tc a rd s
. M a s t e rs t h e n u s e d a fa l s e b irth
cer ti ficat e to sec ure an Al abama dr iv er ’s l ic ense in the n ame “ John Chr is topher M ast ers.” Fi nal ly , us ing the name “ J. Ma ste rs ,” the defendant frau dul entl y obta ine d $46, 676 i n Soc ial Secu ri ty benefit s from Fe br uar

y 2000 to S eptember

2002. Ma ste rs pl eaded g uil ty

to si x co unts of credi t c ard fraud, i n v iol ati on of 18 U.S .C . § 1029( a)(2 ), a n d one countof maki ng fals e s tatement s a nd represent ati ons in an app licati o n f o r Social Secu rity Insuran ce Ben ef its, in v iolation of 42 U.S.C. § 4 08(a )(2). Ma ste rs ’s present ence re por t c alc ula ted a cr imi nal hi sto ry c a te g or y of VI a nd a total off ense lev el of 13; th e tot al offense lev el inc lud ed a tw o- lev el enhanc ement for us ing “soph isticated mea ns” to com mit his crime s. U.S.S.G. § 2B1

. 1 (b )( 9 )(C). Af ter a sent enci ng hear ing , t he di str i ct c our t s entenc ed M ast ers t o 33 months ’ impr is onment, three y ears of supe rv ised relea se, an d orde re d h im to p ay $54 ,58 1.9 6 in restitut ion. Maste rs cont ends that he did not u se “s ophi sti cat ed means ” in commi tti ng the offenses , and that therefore t he c our

t w as not j ust ified i n appl y ing the tw o- lev el enhanc ement. II. W e rev iew

the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s a ppl ic ati on of the Uni ted S tates Sent enci ng Gui del ine s for clea r er ro r. U nit ed St ates v . Kraig , 99 F. 3d 1361 , 137 1 ( 6th C ir . 199 6)

. A factua l f inding is clearly errone ous w hen “‘the review ing court .

. . is lef t w ith the def inite an d f irm conviction tha t a mista ke ha s bee n com mitt ed. ’” And erson v . City o f B essem er City , NC, 470 U .S. 564, 573 ( 1985) ( ci tati on omi tted)

. III .(N o. 05 -6 832) - 3 -

Sect ion 2 B1.1 of the U nit ed St ates Sent enci ng Gui del ine s d efines “s ophi sti cat ed means” as : [E]s peci all y

co mplex or especi all y

intr ic ate off ense cond uctper tai nin g to the ex ecut ion or

co nceal ment of an offense. F or ex a mple, i n a t ele mark eti ng sc heme, l ocat ing the main off ic e of the sc heme i n one jur is dicti on but loc ati ng sol ic it ing operati ons in another jur is dicti on ordin ar ilyindi cat es sophi sti cat ed means

. Con ductsu ch a s hid ing as set s o r transacti ons, or both, t hrou g h th e us e of fi c ti ti ou s e nt i ti es , c or po rat e s he l l s , or o f fshore financi al acc ounts al so ordin ar il y i ndi cat es sophi sti cat ed means

. U. S.S. G. § 2B1. 1, c omment. ( n.8( B) ) (2 005)

. A s er ies of cr imi nal acti ons may consti tute soph is ti cat ed means ev en if none of the off enses , sta ndi ng alo ne, is “e spec ial ly compl ex ” or “ espec ial ly

i ntr ic ate.” Se e, e. g ., Uni ted Stat es v . Tandon, 111 F. 3d 482, 491 (6 th C ir . 199 7) ; U nit ed Stat es v . Pi er ce, 17 F .3d 1 46, 150- 51 ( 6th C ir . 199 4)

. Ma ste rs a rg ues that his sc heme w as ess enti all y pedes tr ian ; he dis cov ered informa tion u sing publicly av ailable referen ce ma terials, f iled false credit card app lications, and did not employ “ficti ti ous enti ti es” or “ cor porate s hel ls .” Therefore, Ma ste rs arg ues, the dis tr ic t c our

t c lea rl y er re d i n appl y ing the “s ophi sti cat ed means ” enhanc ement. But w e s ee itdi ff erentl y . Altho ugh ma ny of

Masters’s indiv idua l actions lacke d sophi s ti c at i on , th e di s tr i ct c ou rt did not commi t c lea r er ro r by appl y ing the sent enci ng enhanc ement. The de f e n d a nt defrauded John Mast ers and the IRS usi ng a mult i- prong ed, c ro ss -j ur is dicti onal sc heme. He uti li z ed i nformati on from referenc e mater ial s to o btai n J ohn M ast ers’ s I ndi ana bi rt h
cer ti ficat e and a c re ditrepor t. U si ng thes e doc uments , t he d e fendant the n obt ain ed mult ipl e c re ditca rd s u nder fals e n ames. H e the n us ed J ohn M ast ers’ s I ndi ana bi rt h
cer ti ficat e to procure an Al abama dr iv er ’s li cens e bear ing the name “ John Ma ste rs ,” but the(N o. 05 -6 832) - 4 -

defendant’ s p ic ture. Fi nal ly , t he defendant defrauded the S oci al Sec ur ity Admi nis trati on by el ic it ing ov er $46,000 of be nefits , w hic h w ere sentto a bank ac countes tabl is hed und er a fals e name. W hile ea ch of

the ind iv id u a l s t e ps in the f raud schem e w as no t particula rly sophi sti cat ed, i t i s t he to tal ity of the d efendant’ s c onduc t—t he ent ire s cheme—that the district court foun d w as ca rried out usin g “soph isticated mea ns.” W e thin k the cou rt commi tte d n o e r ro r , c l e a r o r o t h e r w i s e , i n a p p l y i n g t h e e n h a n c e me n ta n d i n s e n t e n c i ng Ma ste rs to 33 month s’ co nfinement. IV. W e A FFIRM

.