FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 26, 2004 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1015 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 03-80087 -CR- JCP

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us SYLENA BRITT, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct obe r 26, 200 4)

Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S an d H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Sy le naBr itt

appe al s he r se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

ple ad ing gui lty

to co nspi ra cy

to unl aw fu lly

pr oduc e So ci al S ec ur ity

A cc ount N um be r (S SA N ) card s, in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 10 28( a) (1 ), ( f) . S pe ci fi ca lly , Br itt c ha lle nge s he r tw ole ve l e nhanc em en t f

or abuse of apos iti on o f tr

ust und er U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3, arg uin g the e nhanc em en t w as ina ppr opr ia te be ca

use : ( 1) she did

not hol d apos iti on o f trust with the SSAas there w as no identifiable victim of her off

ense; (2) the abuseof-trust enhancem ent onlyapplies to offenders who have exer cised m anagerial j u d g me n tan dd i s c r e t i o n , w h i c h n e c e s s a r i l y e x c l u d e s ame r e d a t ac l e rko r f o rms pr oc es sor suc h a s he rs el f; ( 3) he r posi tio n a s part -t im e cl er k di d no t gi ve he r the

“ free dom to com m it or conceal a difficult-to-detect w rong;” (4) not every em plo ym en t po sit ionc onst itu te s apos iti on o f tr ust , f or suc h apos iti on i s ge ne ra lly a type o f “ fid uc ia ry

rel at io ns hi p” th atdi d n ot ex is t b et ween he rs el f an d t he SSA; and (5) the abuse-of-tr

ust enhancem ent is inapprop riate when, as her e, the conduct com prising her off

ense of conviction was itself the abuse of trust. T he district c o u rtd i dn o te rr

i n i mp o s i n g th e e n h a n c e me n t . We a f f i rm. I. BACKGROUND Br itt ple d gu ilty

to one c ount

of c onsp ir ac y

to pr oduc e w ith out

law fu l au tho ri ty U nit ed S ta te s id en tif

ic at iondoc um en ts, S SA

N c ar ds, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 10 28( a) (1 ), ( f) . A t B ri tt’ s pl ea he ar ing , the G ove rn m en t m ad e the3

following proffer: A s a cler k for the SS A, Britt’ s responsib ilities inclu ded pr oc es sin g a

ppl ic at ion s f

or S SA N c ar ds. B ri tt w orke d part -t im e fr om Jun e th ro ug h Au gu st 19 98 , and th en ag ai n fr om Jan ua ry 19 99 un ti l J un e 2 00 3. An agent from

the Of fice of Inspector Ge neral (O IG ) of the S SAdiscovered Britt had pr oc es se d se ve ra l S SA

N appl ic at ion s us ing a lie n id en tif ic at ionnum

be rs “ it w oul d not have be enpos sib le ” fo r he r to h av e ve ri fi ed “ in the m an ne r in whic h sh e re pr es en te d. ” I n astate m en t pr ovi de d to O IGa ge nts , Br itt a dm itt ed to ag re ei ng wit h t hr ee o th er i nd iv id ua ls to frau du le nt ly pro ces s ap pl ic at io ns foril le ga l al ie ns . The di st ric t co ur t ac cep te d B rit t’s g ui lt y pl ea. Inthe pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort, the pr oba tio n of fi ce r re co m

m en de d, int er ali a , th atBri tt ’s sen te nc e b e en ha nc edtwo lev el s p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 3B 1. 3 be ca

use she ha d a

buse d he r posi tio n of

tr ust a s apart -t im e cl er

k w iththe SS A by appr ovi ng a

ppr oxi m at el y

423 S SA N c ar ds f or il le ga l a lie ns who d id n ot qua lif y f or the c ar ds. B ri tt obj ec te d to the abuse -o f- tr ust e nhanc em en t, a sse rt ing he r posi tio n a s apart -t im e cl er k w as not apos iti on o f tr

ust a s c ont em

plate d inthe Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s. A t se nte nc ing , Br itt arg ue d th e ab use -o f- tr

ust en hanc em en t w as “ ge ar ed . . . to som eo ne w ho i s c hara ct er iz ed by pr of es sio na l or m anagerial discretion,” not a part-tim e cler k at the SSA . The district court disagreed, stating “ the fact that [ Britt] certified these docum ents without ever4

ha vin g se enthe appl ic an ts . . . sho w s th at she w as giv ena

im portant p osi tio n of trust, and I don’ t thinkshe has to be on a board of directors to have such po sition .” T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er

ru le d B ri tt’ s ob

j ec tio n to the abuse -o f- tr ust e nhanc em en t an d se nte nc ed

he r. B ri tt tim el y

appe al ed . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In assessing a dist rict court * s a ppl ic at ionof

the abuse -o f- tr

ust e nhanc em en t under U. S. S. G. § 3B1.3, w e re view the district court * s finding s of fac t for clear error , but reviewde novo th e district court * s determ ination that the facts j ustify an ab us e-o f-t ru st en ha nc em en t. U nit ed Sta tes v . W

ard , 222 F. 3d 90 9, 911 (11th Cir. 2000 ). III. DISC USSION T he S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de ade fe ndant * s se nte nc ing le ve l sh al l be inc re as ed tw o le ve ls “ [i ] f the de fe ndant a buse d apos iti on o f publ ic or pr ivate tr ust , or use d aspe ci al ski ll, in a m an ne r that si gni fi cantl y f ac ili ta te d th e co m

m iss ionor co nc ea lm en t of

the of fe nse . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3. W e ha ve he ld the abuse -o f- tr ust en ha nc em en t o nl y

ap pl ie s i f th e g ov ern m en t h as est ab li sh edth e fo ll owi ng two el em en ts: “ (1 ) that the de fe ndant h el d apla ce of pub lic or pr ivate tr ust ; and (2) that the defendant abused that pos ition in a w ay that signi ficantly

fac ilitated the com m issio n or concealm ent of the offense. ” W ard , 22 2 F .3dat 9 11 .5

Furthe rm or e, the c om

m en tary to § 3B 1. 3 e xpl ai ns tha t a pos iti on o f tr

ust is

“ ch ar ac te ri ze d by

pr of es sio na l or

m an ag er ia l di sc re tio n ( i.e. , substantial dis cr et ion ar

y j udgm en t tha t i s or din ar ily giv enc onsi de ra

ble de fe re nc e) , ” an d a pe rs on i n su chapos iti on o rd inari ly is “ subj ec t t o si gni fi cantl y le ss s upe rv isi on th an em pl oyees wh os e res po ns ib il it ie s ar e p rimaril y no n- di sc ret io na ry

in na tu re.” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3, c om

m en t. ( n. 1) . Apos iti on o f tr ust sig nif ic an tly f ac ili ta te s th e co m m iss ionor

c onc ea lm en t of

an of fe nse whe n “ the pe rs on i n th e posi tio n of tr ust has an advantage in comm itting the crim e because of that trust and us es that advantage in order to com m it the crim e. ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . B arak

at , 130 F . 3d 14 48 , 14 55 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). T he de te rm inatio n of

w he the r a de fe ndant o cc upi ed apos iti on o f tr

ust is ex tr em el y f ac t se nsi tiv e. F or

e xa m ple , in W ard , w e he ld a

se curi ty guard w ho sto le m one y

be ing tr an spor

te d inan arm or ed

c ar he w as hir ed

to pr ote ct

did not hol d apos iti on o f tr

ust w ithhis e m

plo y er be ca use he “ ha d ve ry

li ttl e dis cr et ionin pe rf orm ing his duty

a s ase curi ty

guard , ” an d “ he w as c los el y , a lbe it not co ns ta nt ly, su pe rv is edby his em pl oyer. The m on ey

he gu ard edwas p ro ces se d . . . upon delivery , and any

discrepancy

betwee n the m oney

rec eived and delivered would be—and was—noticed.” W ard , 222 F . 3d at 91 2–13 . W e al so h el d af ood se rv ic e fo re m an

w ho s m uggl ed dr ugs int o th e pr iso n w he re he w orke d di d no t6

hol d apos iti on o f tr

ust w iththe Bure auof

P ri sons , e ve n th ougha s apr iso n em plo y ee he w as e xe m

pte d f ro m be ing se ar ch ed

upo n e nte ri ng the pr iso n, be ca use hold ing ot herw ise “ would extend [the application of § 3B1.3] to virtually every em plo ym en t si tuatio n be ca

use e m plo y er s ‘ tr

ust * their em

ploy ees. ” United States v. Lo ng , 122 F. 3d 13 60, 1365– 66 (11th Cir. 1997 ). O n th e oth er

hand, w e he ld a

de puty c ounty r eg istrar, w ho w as r es pons ibl e fo r re gis te ri ng qua lif

ie d vo te rs , abuse d he r posi tio n of tr ust w he n sh e conspired “ to kno wingly

and willfully

give false inform ation as to a voter * s n a me and address for the purpose of establishi ng the vo ter * s eligibil ity to vote.” United Sta tes v . Sm ith , 231 F . 3d 8 00, 804 –05, 819 –20 (1 1thCi r. 200 0) . I n up hol din g th e § 3B1.3 enhancem ent, w e noted the appellant “ wa s convicted of offenses invo lving [another individ ual * s] vot e, of fe nse s w hic h w er e de pe nde nt u pon his ha vin g be enr eg ist er ed

to vot e, and s he use d he r posi tio n a s de puty r eg istrar to bring that abo ut (fra

udul ently ). ” I

d. a t 82 0. A cc or din gly , w e co uld not c onc lud e

“ that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in fi ndi ng tha t [ ap pe llant * s] pos iti on s ign if ic an tly ai de d h er co m

m is si on of a n o ffen se forwhi ch sh e was co nv ic te d.” Id . The f acts of this case m ost closelyresem ble those of Sm ith . G ive n th e am ount of ind ep en de nt j udgm en t B ri tt ex er ci se d, Br itt he ld a pos iti on o f tr

ust w ith the S SAand a

buse d th at

pos iti on t o f

ac ili ta te he r cr im e. B ri tt w as not ac los el y7

supe rv ise d e m

plo y ee w ho h ad

li ttl e dis cr et ionin pe rf

orm ing he r dut ie s. T o th e co ntr ar y , she ha d agr eat de al of dis cr et ion , inc lud ing w he the r to a cc ep t, r ej ec t, or re port f or f urthe r inv es tig at ionthe doc um en tary e vid en ce sub m itt ed

to he r in supp ort of applications for SSA N c ards. Indeed, she was so loosely supervised that sh e w as able , ove r a pe ri od s panni ng m or e than f our y ears , to ap pr ove fr au dul en t S SA

Nappl ic at ion s w ith out

de te ct ionde spi te the f

ac t the doc um en ts upon which she purportedly relied did not exist . Ac cordingly , the district court di d n ot err i n c on cl ud in g B rit t h el d a nd ab us eda po si ti on of t ru st . In addition to the two elem ents of the abuse-of-trust enhancem ent noted ab ove , “ [f

] or the e nhanc em en t t o a

ppl y , [ the ] de fe ndant m

ust have be enin a posit ion of trust with respect to the vi ct im of the crim e. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . G arr iso n , 133 F. 3d 8 31, 837 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( quot ing U nit ed Sta tes v . R agland , 72 F . 3d 500, 502 ( 6thCi r. 199 6) ). A lth oughw e ha ve not a ddr es se d th is r equir em en t spe ci fi ca lly

w ithr es pe ct

to a cr im e co m

m itt ed by agov er nm en t e m plo y ee , our co nc lus ionin Sm ith sug ge sts the U nit ed S ta te s go ve rn m en t, or

m or e spe ci fi ca lly th e SSA, i s t he vi ct im

of B rit t’s o ffen se . Se e als o U nit ed Sta tes v . W

hit e , 270 F . 3d 356, 371 ( 6thCi r. 200 1) ( pe rs ua siv e au tho ri ty hol din g “ the ge ne ra l pu

bli c m ay be vic tim s of

agov er nm en t e m plo y ee ’ s c ri m es f

or pur pose s of de ci din g w he the r the em plo y ee ’ s se nte nc e m ay

be e nhanc ed

pur suant t o § 3 B1 . 3") . F urthe rm or e, Br itt8

di d n ot rai se th is id en ti fiabl e-v ic ti m is su e in th e d is tri ctco ur t. Acco rd in gl y , we ad dr es s th is i ssu e onl y

“ unde r the pla in e rr or

doc tr ine to av oid

‘ m an if es t injustice. ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ne el

y , 979 F . 2d 1 522, 152 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . W e ha ve not m ad e a de fi nit ive r

uli ng o n th is i ssu e, so the a lle ge d e rr or c an not be pla in o r ob vi ou s. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . G errow , 232 F . 3d 8 31, 835 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) (rea ffirm ing “ wher e neither the Suprem e Court nor this Court has ever resolved an issue, and other circuits are split on it, there can be no plain error in r egard to that issue”). Fi na lly , Br itt

r el ie s onour

a lte rn at e hol din g in G arr iso n , that be ca use the ap pe llant’ s “ba se f

ra ud c ri m e w as the sub m iss ionof f al se state m en ts o n c ost re ports . . . she [ co uld

not ] r ec ei ve an e nhanc em en t f or abuse of apos iti on o f publ ic trust based on th e sam e conduct und er the specif ic term s of section 3B1.3.” G arr iso n , 133 F . 3d at 84 3. W e re ce ntl y c onc lud ed , how ev er , thi s a lte rn at e hol din g in G arr iso n was di ct a. U nit ed Sta tes v . B rac ci ale , 374 F . 3d 9 98, 100 7– 09 (11th Cir. 2003 ).9 IV. CONCLUSION Be ca use Br itt use d he r posi tio n a s ac le rk w iththe S SAto fa ci lit at e the co m m iss ionand c onc ea lm en t of he r ill eg al a ct s, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by en hanc ing he r se nte nc e unde r § 3B 1. 3. AFFIR MED.