2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-13-2009 

# U SA v . Dullum
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4502

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Dullum" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1624. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1624P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 4502
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J A R E D D U L L U M,

A ppel l ant
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 06- cr - 00676) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sus an D
. W i gent on
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary30, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie f

J u d g e , A M B R O , and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 13, 2009)T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. 1 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on u n d er 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 and 2 M icha el C h az en , E sq u ir e 4400 R out e 9 Sout h, Sui t e 1000 Fr eehol d, N J 07728- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant C h risto p h e r J. C h ristie U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney G eor ge S. L eone C hi ef, A ppeal s D i vi s i on S teve n G
. S an d ers A s s i s t antU
. S. A t t orney O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 970 B r oad St r eet , R oom 700 N ew ark, N J 07102- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Jar ed D ull um app eal s hi s sent ence o f 28 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent
. H e pl ed gui l t yt o m ai l fr aud, i n vi ol at i on of 11 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a). 3 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 4 1 , a n d b a nk fr a u d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 4 4 . D u llu m a rg u e s th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a so n a b le, a ss e rtin g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in m i s appl y i ng f i ve sent enci ng a d j u s t m e n t s : f o u r enhanc ement s
— fora l os s amount gr eat ert han $30, 0 00, vul ner abl e vi ct i m , abus e of t rus t , and obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce; and one deduc t i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bil it y . Forthe f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e se n ten c e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . Backg r ound D ul l um w as a Speci al A gentw i t h the U
. S. Secr etSer vi ce a n d a n a c tiv e m e m b e r o f h is N e w Je rse yc h u rc h . W ith in h is chur ch, he s erved i n a seni orl eade r s hi p pos i t i on, t eac hi ng cl as s es and couns el i ng fe ll ow m ember s w ho w er e s t ruggl i ng w ith a lc o h o l a n d s u b s ta n c e a b u s e . T w o m em b ers D u ll u m w o rke d w ith in this ca p ac ityw ere J ul i e D eSaci a and N i ck C etrul o, bot h r ecove r i ng al cohol i cs and d ru g a d d i c t s w h o m D u llu m c h a ra c te ri z e d a s “ a littl e s lo w .” D e S a c ia a n d C e tru lo a lso stru g g led f in a n c ially . D e S a c ia r ece i ved a mont hl y paym ent fr om t he Pl um ber ’ s U ni on Pens i on F un d an d C et rul o recei ved dis abil i t yben efi t s. D ull um al so offe r ed t o s erve as t he fi nanci al advi s or t o bot h per s ons . I n J une 2004, D eSaci a be cam e veryi l l , s uffe r i ng fr om phy s i cal and me n t a l e f

f e c t s o f c i r r h o s i s o f

t h e l i v e r . Ac c o r d i n g t o Du l l u m,A t t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, a Secr etSer vi ce a genti nvol ved 2 in th e in v e stig a tio n w h o h a d in ter v iew e d C e tru lo e x p lain e d th a t, al t hough D ul l um pai d C etrul o appr oxi m at el y $8, 000, the l att er “gave [D ul l um ] back [ $] 8, 500” bas ed on a l i s tD ul l um cr eat ed purpor t edl yt o r epay hi m for “t oy s ” and other t hi ngs . T hus , t he o v e ra ll l o ss to C e tru lo w a s a p p ro x im a tely$ 5 0 0 . A c c o rd in g to 4 D eSaci a t ol d hi m t hats he w an te d C etrul o t o be pr ovi ded for upon herdeath. D ul l um pr epar ed a w i l l and as s oci at ed trus t , but D e S a c ia n e v e r s ig n e d th e d o c u m e n ts b e f o re s h e d ie d
. A . T h e F o r g e d W ill A ft erD eSaci a di ed i ntest at e i n J anuary2005, D ul l um for ged D eS ac ia’s s i gnatur e on the w i l l and trus t , backda t i ng bot h document s t o 2004. T he w i l l p u rpor t ed t o name D ul l um t h e e x e c u t o ro f

t h e e s t a t e a n d C e t ru l o th e p r i m a r y b e n e f i c i a r y. R epr es ent i ng hi m s el f as exec ut or , D ul l um got t he P ens i on Fund t o s end hi m a chec k for $29, 352. 76, w hi ch w as D eSaci a’ s l um ps um pay out
. H e depos i t ed the che ck i nt o an es t at e bank a ccount he had ope ned, and then tr ans ferr ed the pr ocee ds t o hi s per s onal a c c o u n t. D ul l um di d noti nform D eSaci a’ s fami l yt hathe w as a c tin g a s e x e c u to r. H e to ld C e tru lo th a t th e w ill n a m e d C e tru lo as t he es t at e’ s pr i m arybenef i ci ary . Y etD ul l um o n l ygave C etrul o an amount l es s t han $8, 000, w hi ch he r epr es ent ed as t he f u ll p ro c e e d s o f th e e sta te. D u llu m late r a d m itt e d th a t h e p a id 2th e a g e n t, D u llu m c o u ld n o t p ro d u c e o r re p lica te th e list an d it
“ d id n o t s e e m lik e it w a s g o in g to a d d u p to [ $ ]8 ,5 0 0 .” 5 C etrul o t o s t op hi m fr om “pr es s ur i ng m e fo r m yhel p” and ask ing q u esti o n s ab o u t the w il l. H e also t o ld th e e s ta te’s cr edi t or s t hatt he es t at e had l i t t l e orno m oney , s o it co u ld not paym ostof it s outs t and i ng deb t s. T he Secr etSer vi ce be gan an i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on conce r ni ng t hes e i s s ues i n J ul y2005, after D ul l um ’ s bank c o m m u n ic a ted w ith th e a g e n c yto re p o rt su sp icio u s a c tiv ity i nvol vi ng hi s acc ount s . W hen age nt s ques t i oned D ul l um about t he bank t r ans fer fr om t he es t at e’ s acc ount t o hi s p erso n al acc ount , he cl ai m ed thatD eSaci a had r ent ed hi s beac h hous e. I n s uppor tof t hi s cont ent i on, he produc ed a f abr i cat ed $20, 000 p rom i s s or ynot e made outt o hi m and purpor t edl yexec ut ed by D eSaci a. B. Th e Ba n k F r a u d S c h e me D ul l um ow ned r ent al pr oper t yatthe N ew J er s eys hor e. I n M ay 2005, T ony W oods emai l ed D ul l um an d expr es s ed i nt er es ti n r ent i ng t he prope r t y . W oods s ent D ul l um a re ntchec k for $10, 500. 87 i n t he name of R ever end Fr ank M i r occo f r om t he N at i onal B ank of Coxsac ki e. D ul l um s us pect ed t hat t hi s chec k w as fr audul entbeca us e he ha d per s onal and pr ofes s i onal exp e r i e n c e wi t h t h i s t yp e o f f r a u d
. Yeth e s t i l l d e p o s i t e d the c h e c k in to th e e sta te b a n k a c c o u n t.6 A ft erdepos i t i ng the che ck, D ul l um emai l ed W oods and f a l s e l yc l a i me d t h a th e h a d n o tr e c e i v e d th e r e n tc h e c k
. He as ked W oods t o s end a new chec k m ade out t o D eSaci a, w hom he cl ai m ed w as hi s w i fe. W o o d s s enthi m anotherchec k for $10, 000. 35 i n t he name of R ever end M i r occo , w hi ch D ul l um al s o depos i t ed i n t he est at e ac count
. A ft erbot h chec ks cl ear ed, he i m m edi at el yt r ans ferr ed the pr ocee ds t o hi s p ers onal bank a c c o u n t. T he dr aw ee ba nk r eturned bot h chec ks t o D ul l um ’ s bank as fra u d u le nt
. H i s bank fr oze hi s acc ount s and fi l ed a Suspi ci ous A ct i vi t yR epor tw i t h t he S ecr etSer vi ce. D ul l um re p a id th e b a n k th e a m o u n ts f o r th e tw o c h e c k s, th o u g h o n ly aft ert he bank ha d fr ozen hi s acc ount s and the Secr etSer vi ce h a d in ter v iew e d h im o n th re e o c c a sio n s a s p a rt o f its inv esti g ati o n . T h e th ir d interview o cc u rred just tw o d ay s b ef o re he w rot e a che ck to the b ank repl aci ng the fu nd s. C . I ndi c t m e nt and Se nt e nc i ng I n A ugus t 2006, a fe der al gr and j uryi ndi ct ed D ul l um on one countof m ai l fr aud an d o ne countof bank f r aud. H e pl ed gui l t yt o bot h count s . T he Pr es ent ence R epor tpr epar ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi ce ( t he “PS R ”) cal cul at ed D ul l um ’ s t ot al fede r al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel under t he U
. S. Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on G ui del i nes M anual (her ei naft er“G ui del i nes ” or “U
. S
. S
. G
. ”) as foll ow s:7 B as e off ens e l evel 7 Lo s s o f $ 3 9 , 2 5 4
. 1 1 +6 Vul n e r a b l e Vi c t i m +2 Abu s e o f Tru s t +2 Obs t ru c t i o n o f

J u s t i c e +2 A cc ep tanc e o f R esp o n sibil ity -3

— T ot al O ffe ns e Level 16 T h e P S R se t D u llu m ’s a d v iso r y G u id e lin e s ra n g e a t 2 1 to 2 7 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, D ul lum o bje ct ed t o al l four G ui del i nes enhanc ement s , ar gui ng thatt hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel s houl d b e 8 (7 pl us , as not ed bel ow , 4 fort he l os s l es s 3 for a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty ). T h e D istric t C o u rt o v e rru led h is obj ect i ons . T he C our tadopt ed the P S R exce ptfort he re c o m m e n d e d th r e e - le v e l a c c e p ta n c e - o f

- r e sp o n sib ili ty deduct i on. I n acc or d w i t h t he G overnm ent ’ s pos i t i on, i tfound th a t D u ll u m ’s p o st-p lea sta tem e n ts f a iled to sh o w th a t h e tru ly acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t y . I taw ar ded hi m onl ya one- l evel r educt i on foravoi di ng a tr i al and pl eadi ng gui l t y . T hus , hi s t ot al o f f e n se lev e l w a s 1 8 , w ith a n a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 7 to 3 3 mo n t h s ’ i mpr i s o n me n t
. Th e Co u r td i s c u s s e d th e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact ors and t hen sent enced D ull um t o 2 8 m on t hs’ im p riso n m e n t an d 3 y e a r s ’ su p e rv ise d re lea se , alo n g w ith $29, 253. 76 i n r es t i tut i on and a $40, 000 fi ne.As we n o t e d i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d s e c t i o n , Du l l u m c a s h e d t wo 3 count er fei tc h e c k s f

r o m W o o ds forappr oxi m at el y$10, 000 eac h.

8 II. A n alysi s A . Los s A m ount Enhanc e m e nt W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc )
. T hi s appl i es t o the l os s ca lcul at i ons D ul l um c o m p la in s o f

u n d e r G u id e lin e s § 2 B 1 .1
. See U ni t ed Stat es v. A li , 508 F. 3d 136, 143 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng G r i er , 475 F. 3d at 5 7 0 ). S e c tio n 2 B 1 .1 is th e G u id e lin e s s e c ti o n a p p lica b le to D u l l u m ’ s f

r a u d o f f e n s e s . U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 1
. 1 ( “ L a r c e n y, E m bezz l ement , and O t herFor m s of Theft
. . . . ”)
. T hi s s ect i on s et s hi s bas e off

ens e l evel at7, w hi ch he does n o tdi s put e. S ub sect i on 2B 1. 1(b)( 1) l i st s enhan cem ents t o the base o f f e nse le v e l th a t d e p e n d o n th e a m o u n t o f lo s s . D ul l um ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n appl y i ng a six-leve l en h an ce m en t un d er G u idelines § 2 B 1
. 1 (b)(1 )(D ) fo r a l o s s a m o u n tg r e a t e rt h a n $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 b e c a u s e h i s b a n k f r a u d s c h e me caus ed no l os s . If the l os s amount s as s oci at ed w i t h t he count er fei tchec k w er e deduc t ed fr om the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s t ot al l oss fi nd i ng of ap proxim at el y$3 9, 00 0, t hen t he rem ai ning l oss forpurpos es of appl y i ng t he enha ncementw oul d have i ncl uded o n lyth e p r o c e e d s o f

th e P e n sio n F u n d , o r a p p ro x im a tely $29, 000. T hus , he cont ends thathe s houl d have been s ubj ect

3A tt he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r r ed onl yt o one ch ec k fo r pu rp o s es o f d eterm ining the lo ss en h an ce m en t. It s t at ed: “[T] her e w er e t w o chec ks for $10, 000. A nd bas ed on the p lea a g ree m en t, an d b as e d o n the p lea, i t’ s co n ce d ed w e’re ta lk in g a b o u t o n e c h e c k f o r $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” 9 to a f o u r-l ev el e n h an ce m en t un d er G u idelines § 2 B 1
. 1 (b)(1 )(C ), w hich r epresent s a l oss am ou nt of m ore than $1 0, 00 0 b ut l ess th a n $ 3 0 ,0 0 0
. T h e c o m m e n tar yto th e e n h a n c e m e n t p o rtio n o f th is G ui del i nes s ect i on r equi r es di s t r i ctcour t s t o us e “the gr eat erof a c tu a l l o s s o ri n t e n d e d l o s s ” f o rf r a u d o f f e n s e s . U. S
. S
. G. § 2B 1
. 1 A p p. N
. 3( A )
. T he “gove r nm ent ’ s bur den i s t o pr ove i nt ended, notpos s i bl e, l os s i f i ts eeks t o i ncr eas e the gui del i ne l evel s fac ed byt he def

endant under§ 2F1. 1. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G eevers , 226 F. 3d 186, 192 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Y eam an , 194 F. 3d 442, 460 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ) ( di s cus s i ng a G u id e lin e s s e c tio n th a t w a s d e le ted a n d c o n so lid a ted w ith § 2 B 1. 1 in 2 00 1). W e hav e held that , i n co un t erfei tcheck cases, a “di s t r i ct cour t does not
. . . comm i t err or w hen, i n the abs ence of s uffi ci entevi dence t o the contr ary , i tfi xes t he [G ] ui del i nes ra n g e b a se d u p o n a p re su m p tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n t in ten d e d to defraud t he b ank s of t he fu l l face am ou nt of the w orthles s chec ks
. ” Id

. a t 1 8 8
. T h e f ra u d u len t ch e c k a m o u n t th a t D u llu m a rg u e s s h o u ld n o t b e in c lu d e d in th e to tal lo ss f o r pu rp o se s o f

d e ter m in in g h is10 enh a n c e me n t was t h e $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 r e n t a l c h e c k h e c a s h e d , w hi ch s erved as t he bas i s fort he bank f r aud count
. H e admi t t ed, ho w ever, t hat he i ntended t he m on eyt o “h el p o ut s om e of [ his ] fi nanci al bur dens , ” i ncl udi ng a w i t hdr aw al of $7, 000 t o pay b a c k h is h o m e e q u ity lin e a n d h is in ten tio n to u se th e m o n e yto c o v e r a n yo u ts ta n d in g p a ym e n ts o n th e re n tal p ro p e rtyif nece s s ary . H e onl yr epai d t o t he bank the fra u dul entchec k a m o u n t af

te r a S e c re t S e rv ice in v e stig a tio n h a d b e g u n a n d h is a c c o u n ts w e re f

ro z e n . D u llu m d id n o t p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e to th e c o n tr a ry a t s e n te n c in g . S e e id

. a t 1 9 4 (h o ld in g th a t a s ent enci ng j udge maycons i dert h e fa ce val ue of de pos i t ed c h e c k s a s “ s u f

f ic i e n t e v id e n c e th a t it w a s th e in te n d e d lo s s ,” al t hough i tcannot“mechani cal l y ” be a s s um ed, and the defe ndant ca n then “pr oduce e vi dence of hi s orherow n i n an att em p t t o co n v ince the c o u rtthat an o ther figu re w as in tend ed ”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Str oz i er , 981 F. 2d 281, 285 ( 7th C ir
. 1992) ( “N o evi dence pr es ent ed att he se n te nci ng hear i ng s uppor t ed c o u n se l’s a p p ra isa l o f h is c lien t’s m o tiv a tio n s, a n d w e re f u se to over tur n t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s s ent ence on t he bas i s of s pecul at i on i n t he val l ey of dr eams. ”)
. T hi s chai n of event s s how s t hatthe D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in f in d in g th a t D u llu m in ten d e d to c a u s e a lo s s f

o r t h e f u ll a m o u n t o f

th e c h e c k
. D ul l um al s o argu es t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o cr edi tfor r e p a yme n to f

t h e l o s s a mou n tb a s e d on A pp l i c a t i o n Not e 3 ( E) to G u idelines § 2 B 1
. 1
. T h is A p p li ca ti o n N o te stat es, ho w ev er, t h a ta d e f

e n d a n tmus tma k e h i s r e p a y m ent b e f ore th e c rim e is uncover ed. U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1. 1 A pp. N
. 3( E ) (i )
. “The t i m e of11 detect i on of the off

ense i s the earl i er of ( I) t he t i m e t he o ffen se w as di s cover ed bya vi ct i m orgovernm entagenc y ; or( I I ) the t i m e the def

endant knew or r eas onabl ys houl d have know n that t he off ens e w as det ect ed oraboutt o be det ect ed bya vi ct i m or governm entagenc y . ” I d. B ased on D ull um ’s ow n ad m i ssi on s, h e r e p a i d t h e m o n e yo n l y af t ert he bank de t ect ed the fr aud, no t i fi ed h i m regar ding the fr aud ulent check s, froze his accou nts , and the S ecr et Ser vi ce began i t s i nves t i gat i on. T hus , t he D i s t r i ct C our tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng that t hi s A ppl i cat i on N ot e does not a p p ly to D u llu m ’s s itu a tio n . D ul l um m akes a r el at ed ar gum entunders ubpart( i i ) of th e s a m e A p p lic a tio n N o te
. Id

. § 2B 1. 1 A pp. N
. 3( E ) ( i i ) ( pr i or t o t he 2006 G ui del i nes , l i s t ed as A pp. N
. 2( E ) ( i i ) )
. I tconce r ns “the det erm i nat i on of l os s unders ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) ” and appl i es s ubpar t (E )( i i ) t o “ca s e[s ] i nvol vi ng col l at er al pl edged or ot herw i s e pr ovi ded bythe def endant
. ” Id
. D ul l um cont ends t hat t he l os s as s oci at ed w i th t he fr audul ent chec k s houl d be r educe d t o zer o beca us e he had other funds i n hi s bank ac count s t o offs et th e b a d c h e c k . T h e re is n o c a se law o n th is iss u e in o u r C irc u it. B ase d o n a c o m m o n sen se re ad ing o f th e A p p li ca ti o n N o te’s s t r ai ght forw ar d l anguage , how ever , w e b eli eve the corr ect i nt erpr et at i on l i m i t s i t s appl i cat i on t o s i tuat i on s i nvol vi ng a t r adi t i onal not i on of col l at er al , s uch as fr audul ent l yi nduci ng a b a n k to iss u e a se c u r e d lo a n . D u llu m ’s f ra u d is m o re a k in to t heftt han the addi t i onal r i s k of l os s that he w oul d have i ncurr ed i f he ha d pl edged hi s ow n col l at er al t o s ecur e a l oan. W e know o f n o c o u rt a p p ly in g th e N o te to a c ir c u m sta n c e sim ilar to12 D u llu m ’s . In d e e d , th e o p p o s i te is tru e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sw ans on , 36 0 F
. 3 d 1155, 1169 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( r ej ect i ng d ef en d an t’ s c laim that “a n yo v erd raf ts on h is acc o u n ts w ere s ecur ed bycol l at er al he had pr evi ous l y pl edged t o t he bank on v a rio u s lo a n s” ); see a l

so U nited S tates v. G oss , 549 F. 3d 1013, 1017–18 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( di s cus s i ng a cr edi t forl oan col l at er al w h en ca lculati n g loss). D ul l um ’s bank account s w er e notform al l ypl edged a s col l at er al
. Fur t her , he di d notpr ovi de the C our t w it h any e v id e n c e b e y o n d h is in -c o u rt sta tem e n ts th a t, ba se d o n h is a c c o u n t ag re e m e n t, th e b a n k c o u ld h a v e tak e n f u n d s f ro m h is ot herbank ac count s t o r ecove r t he am ount l os t on t he fr audul ent chec k. N o r di d he pr ovi de anyevi dence thatthe otherfunds unr el at ed t o hi s m ai l fr aud off ens e w er e s uffi ci entt o coverany por t i on of t he chec k amount
. I n t hi s cont ext , w e conc l ude that t he D i stri ctC o u rt’s a p pli cat i on of § 2B 1. 1(b)( 1)( D ) fora l oss amo untgr eat ert han $30, 000, i ns t ruct i ng a s i x- l evel enhanc ement , w as appr opr i at e. B. V ul ne r abl e V i c t i m Enhanc e m e nt D ul l um nextar gues t hatD eSac ia and C etrul o w er e not vul ner abl e and w er e notdi r ectvi ct i m s , s uch thatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n appl y i ng a tw o- l evel enhanc em en t unde r G u id e lin e s § 3 A 1 .1 (b )(1 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in cons i der i ng D ul l u m’ s a c t i o n s t o war d s DeSac i a and Cet rul o pr i or to D e S a c ia ’s d e a th re le v a n t c o n d u c t u n d e r G u id e lin e s § 1 B 1 .3Ce t ru l o ma yh a v e b e e n a v u l n e r a b l e v i c t i m a s we l l , b u twe 4 need notr eac h t hatques t i on beca us e w e ha v e d et erm i ned that t he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n findi ng t hat D e S a c ia w as a v u l n e r a b l e v i c t i m. 13 c a llin g f o r th e e n h a n c e m e n t. See U nited States v. Mon ostra , 125 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( i ndi cat i ng thatt hi s enhanc ement i s notl i m i t ed “t o s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the vul ner abl e per s on w as th e [ d ire c t] v ictim o f

th e o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n [ , b u t th a t] c o u rts m a ylo o k to a ll th e c o n d u c t u n d e rl y in g a n o f f e n s e , u s in g § 1 B 1 .3 [ re le v a n t c o n d u c t] a s a g u id e ” ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . Za ts , 298 F. 3d 182, 184–85 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. B as ed on the evi dence p rese n ted to the C o u rt , itfo u n d that D eS ac ia an d C etrulo w ere vul ner abl e and thatD ul l um us ed thei rvul ner abi l i t i es ( i ncl udi ng their historyo f su b stan ce ab u se, th at th eyw ere “a li tt le sl o w ,” and D eSaci a’ s su ff

er i ng fr om phy s i cal and ment al eff ect s of ci r r hos i s befor e he rdeath) t o actas thei rfi nanci al advi s orand gai n acc es s t o t he fi nanci al infor m at i on neede d t o fol l ow th ro u g h o n th e f

ra u d
. See i d. at190 ( s t at i ng thatfort he en h an ce m en t t o ap p ly , there m u st b e a sh o w ing that the v ict im ’s
“ v u l n e r a b i l i t yo r s u s c e p t i b i l i t yf a c i l i t a t e d th e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s c r i me in so m e m ann er”)
. T here i s no q uest i on that these ci r cumst ance s qual if

yD eSaci a as “vul ner abl e” ( even i f the di r ectvi ct i m w as heres t at e) , and ther e nee d onl ybe one v u l n e r a b l e v i c t i m f

o r th e t w o - l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n tt o a p p l y. See 4 U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 A 1
. 1 (b)(1 ).14 C . A bus e of

Trus t Enhanc e m e nt T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound D u ll u m “abus ed a pos i t i on of publ i c and pr i vat e trus t ” t ow ar d D eSaci a and C etrul o beca us e he w a s a S e c re t S e rv ic e a g e n t a n d a tru s te d a d v is o r a t c h u rc h
. See U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3B 1. 3. T he t w o-l evel en han cem ent un der the ab use of trus tG ui del i nes s ect i on i s onl yappl i cabl e t o defe ndant s w ho us e thei r“pos i t i on of publ i c orpr i vat e trus t
. . . i n a mannerthat s i gni fi cant l yfac i l i t at e[s ] t he com m i s s i on or conce al m entof the offe ns e. ” I

d. D ul l um ar gues the C our t ’ s fi ndi n g s w ere not s uffi ci entfor t hi s enhanc ement
. H e cont ends t hat“[w ] hat ever r el at i ons hi p [he] had w it h D eSaci a orC etrul o, i tw as nott he typ e o f c a s e c o n te m p la te d b yth is p a rt ic u la r a d ju s tm e n t.” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 13. I n s uppor t , he ci t es t o U ni t ed Stat es v. P ar do , 25 F. 3d 1187 ( 3 d C i r . 1994) , w her e w e di s cerned no p o s i t i o n o f

t ru s twhe n t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p o s i t i o n a s a l o n g - t i me fr i end of the bank managerfac i l i t at ed hi s defr audi ng t he bank. A s w hether “d ef

endantoccupi ed a pos i t i on of trus ti s a l egal qu est i on , w e revi ew this d e novo . B utw e r evi ew the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he defenda nt abus ed a pos i t i on of t rus tfor cl earerr or , as t hi s i s a factual ques t i on. ” U nited S tates v. H

art , 273 F. 3d 363, 376 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) (d e ter m in in g th a t ce rta in sto c kb ro k e rs w e re in p o s itio n s o f

tru s t)
.

“ N e ith e r § 3 B 1 .3 n o r its a p p lica b le C o m m e n tar yc lea rly defi nes w hati s m eantbya pos i t i on of trus t
. ” I d. at375 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. I

annone , 184 F. 3dD u rin g a n in ter v iew w ith S e c re t S e rv ice a g e n ts, C e tru lo 5 i ndi cat ed that , i n addi t i on t o D ul l um ’ s pos i t i on i n t he chur ch, he f u rth e r tru ste d D u llu m b e c a u se h e w a s a S e c re t S e rv ice a g e n t. 15 2 1 4 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ))
. P a rdo s etouta thr ee- par tt es tfor det erm i ni ng w hethera pos i t i on i s one of trus t : “( 1) w hethert he pos i t i on al l ow s t he def endantt o comm i ta di ffi cul t
- t o- det ect w ro n g ; (2 ) th e d e g re e o f a u th o rityw h ich th e p o sitio n v e sts in defe n d a n t v i s - a - v i s t h e o b j e c t o f t h e wr o n g f

u l a c t ; a n d ( 3) w hethert her e has been r el i ance on t he i nt eg r i t yof the per s on occupy i ng t he pos i t i on. ” 25 F. 3d at11 92
. W e no t ed thatt hese fac t or s s houl d be consi der ed i n l i ghtof the gui di ng r at i onal e of t he s ect i on: “t o puni s h ‘ i ns i der s ’ w ho abus e thei rpos i t i ons ra th e r th a n th o se w h o ta k e a d v a n tag e o f a n a v a ilab le op p o rt u ni t y . ” I

d. W e re c o g n ize d th a t th e A p p lica tio n N o te to t h i s s e c t i o n r e f

e r s t o t h e s e p o s i t i o n s i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l c a p a c i t y, buts t at ed that“w e ar e unw i l l i ng t o dr aw a br i ghtl i ne l i m i t i ng t he abus e of trus ti ncr eas e t o the em pl oym ent r el at i ons hi p. ” I d. at 1 1 9 0

– 9 1 (cit ing ca ses f rom o ther c o u rt s w h ere a m o ther, b a b y sitter , an d ste p f

a th e r, re sp e c tiv e ly , w e re f o u n d to b e in p o sit ion s o f trust). T hr ough D ul l um ’ s i nvol vementw i t h hi s chu rch , he f o rm a llya c ted a s a tea c h e r, ad v iso r, an d c o u n se lo r to D e S a c ia and C etrul o. H e s pents ubs t ant i al t i m e w i t h D eSaci a and

5 C e tru lo o v e r a p p ro x im a te ly th re e y e a rs a s a tru s te d c h u rc h fig u re of author i t y , couns el i ng t hem w i t h r es pectt o thei rs ubs t ance and a l c o h o l a b u s e , a n d a s t h e i rf i n a n c i a l a d v i s o r . I n t h i s c a p a c i t y,B e c a u s e w e h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t D u llu m a b u se d h is 6 pos i t i on of trus t i n a pr i vat e capa ci t y , w e need notr eac h w hether h e a ls o a b u s e d th a t p o s itio n in a p u b lic c a p a c ity. D u ll u m ’s su b sidiaryarg u m en ts— that h is s ta tem en ts w ere 7 notunderoath and thathe w as notchar ged w i t h v iola t i ng 18 U
. S. C
. § 1001— ar e cl ear l yw r ong. 16 D ul l um had the abi l i t yand “‘ fr eedom t o comm i ta di ffi cul t
- t odet ectw r ong’ ” i n for gi ng D eSaci a’s w i l l and ac t i ng as her e x e c u to r. Id

. at1191–92 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Li eberm an , 9 7 1 F
. 2 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ))

. H e w as nots i m pl y“t ak[i ng] advant age of an avai l abl e oppor tuni t y . ” Id

. at1192. R egi onal branch es of D ull um ’s chu rch ar e l ed b ysel ectcon gregan t s. U n d o u b ted ly , in D u llu m ’s s e n io r p o sitio n , D e S a c ia a n d C e tru lo r el i ed on hi s i nt egr i t y . H e w as cert ai nl y m or e t han the “f r i end” i n P ar do
. S e e id
. T hu s, w e ho l d thatD ull um ’s po si t i on w as a pr i vat e posi t i on of t rus t
. Fur t her , t he C our t di d not erri n fi ndi ng t hat D ul l um abus ed thatpos i t i on t o appl yt he tw o- l evel enhanc ementunder§ 3B 1. 3. See U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 3 ( r equi r i ng 6 th a t a d e f

e n d a n t’s a b u se o f

th e p o sitio n o f

tru st “ sig n if

ica n tly fa cil it ated the c o m m issi o n o r co n ce alm en t of the o ff en se” ). D . O bs t r uc t i on- of

- Jus t i c e Enhanc e m e nt D ul l um obj ect s t o the tw o- l evel enhanc ementfor obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce under G ui del i nes § 3C 1. 1. T hi s ar gum ent has no t r act i on. D ur i ng t he Secr et Ser vi ce’ s inve s t i gat i on, 717 agent s i n tervi ew ed D ul l um thr ee t i m es and he pr ovi ded fi ve s w o rn st at ement s underoath at t es t i ng t o t he ac cur acyof the i nform at i on he pr ovi ded. F o u r of thos e s t at ement s cont ai ned l i es aboutt he count er fei tchec ks and how he ca m e t o s erv e as exec ut orof D eSaci a’ s es t at e. H e al s o prov ided a for ged pr om i s s or y not e t o agent s dur i ng hi s t hi r d i nt ervi ew and fa i l ed a p o ly g ra p h e x a m in a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u r t re lied o n th is in f o rm a tio n in a p p lyin g th e e n h a n c e m e n t. D ul l um t hus fal l s s quar el y w i t hi n § 3C 1. 1, w hi ch s t at es in p e rtin e n t p a rt: I f ( A ) t he def

endantw i l l ful l yobs t ruct ed or i m peded, orat t empt ed t o obs t ructori m pede, the a d m in istra tio n o f

ju stic e w ith re sp e c t to t he .
. . pr os ecut i on . . . of the instan toffe ns e of convi ct i on, and ( B ) the obs t ruct i ve conduc t r el at ed t o ( i ) t he defe ndant ’ s offe ns e of convi ct i on and anyrel evan tcon du ct ; . . . i ncrease t he o ffen se l evel by2 level s. A p p lica tio n N o te 4 , ti tled “ E x a m p les o f C o v e re d C o n d u c t,” s e ts out“a non- exha u sti ve l i s tof exa m pl es of the types of conduc t to w h ich th is e n h a n c e m e n t ap p lies .” T h e e x a m p les sp e c if ica lly at t r i but abl e t o D ul l um ’ s act i ons i ncl ude “pr oduci ng or at t empt i ng t o pr oduce a fal s e, al t er ed, orcount er fei tdocument orr ecor d dur i ng an off i ci al i nves t i gat i on, ” and “ pr ovi d ing a m at er i al l yfal s e s t at ementt o a l aw enfor cementoffi certhatSe c t i o n 3 E1
. 1 i s s e tu p s u c h th a ta o n e - l e v e l d e d u c t i o n f or 8 avoi di ng t r i al unders ubs ect i on ( b) can onl ybe appl i ed i f the d e f e n d a n t q u a lifie s f

o r a tw o -le v e l d e d u c tio n f o r “ c lea rly demonstr at [i ng] acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y ” unders ubs ect i on (a ). D u llu m a rg u e s th a t th e C o u rt “ n e c e ss a rily h a d to f in d h im e lig ib le f o r th e re d u c tio n ” u n d e r su b se c tio n (a ). W e d o u b t th is gi ven i t s s t r ong s t at ement s agai ns tD ul l um ’ s ful l acc ept ance of 18 s ig n if i c a n tly o b s tru c te d o r i m p e d e d th e o f f ic ia l in v e s tig a tio n .” U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 A p p . N . 4 (c ), ( g ). I n an att empt t o coverup hi s w r ongdoi ng, D u l l um m ani pul at ed the trut h thr oughout t he i nves t i gat i on bypr ovi di ng several fal se st at em ents and do cum ents t o S ecretS ervi ce age nts
. O n lya f ter re p e a ted in ter v iew s d id h e m o re tru th f u llyd isc u ss h is a c t i o n s i n h i s f

i f t h a n d f i n a l s wo r n s t a t e me n t
. T h u s , we co n clud e tha t th is en h an ce m en t w as h ard lyan erro r. E . A cce pt ance- of

- R es ponsi bi l i t y D educt i on D ul l um ’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hathe s houl d have r ece i ved th e th re e -le v e l d e d u c tio n f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty re c o m m e n d e d in th e P S R
. See U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1. T he D i s t r i ct C our t o n ly r educe d hi s offe ns e l evel byone bec aus e he pl ed gui l t yand avoi ded goi ng t o tr ial
. I tr efus ed t o gr antthe addi t i onal t w o l evel s beca us e i tfound thatD ul l um di d not
“ c lea rlyd e m o n s tr a te[ ] a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili tyf

o r h is o f f e n s e .” Id
.

8r es pons i bi l i t yat t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. T hus , D ul l um m aynot have be en el i gi bl e for the one- l evel deduct i on t he C our tgr ant ed. W h ile th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts th is o u t, G o v ’t R e sp . B r. a t 4 1 , it s i m pl yar gues t hat“D ul lum, ther efor e, cannotcl ai m t o have been a ggr i eved by t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s err or . ” I d. at42. W e t oo g o n o fu rth er. 19 A t se n ten ci ng , the C o u rt e x ten siv e lyd isc u ss e d its d isd a in f o r D u ll u m ’s c o n d u c t. Itf o u n d th a t h e re f

u se d to tak e f

u ll r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s behavi orbas ed on hi s pr e- s ent enci ng l ett er t o t h e P r o b a t i o n Of

f i c e a n d h i s s t a t e me n t s b e f o r e th e Co u r t
. He r ei t er at ed that h e w as j us tt r y i ng t o hel p peopl e and thathe “bel i eved he w as acti ng i n t he bes ti nt er es tof C etrul o and carr y i n g o u tDeS a c i a ’ s wi s h e s . ” I n s u p p o r to f i t s ru l i n g , t he C our ts t at ed t hat t he acce pt ance of r es pons i bi l i t ydeduct i on w as nota mat t erof “r i ght
. ” S e e id

. A p p . N
. 3 ( “[E] vi dence of acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y. . . . m aybe outw ei ghed byconduct of t h e defenda ntt hati s i ncons i s t entw i t h s uch ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . A defe ndant w ho ent er s a gui l t ypl ea i s not en ti t l ed t o an adj us t m entundert hi s s ect i on as a mat t erof r i g h t
. ” ); s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. O ’

N eal , 9 6 9 F. 2 d 5 1 2 , 515 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (a f

f irm in g d e n ial o f

a c c e p tan c e -o f-r espon sibility deduct i on beca us e “ n eitherthe def endant ’ s l ett ert o t he p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r p u rp o rtin g to a c c e p t r e s p o n sib ili ty , n o r h is w r i t t en s t at ementpurpor t i ng t o s how acc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , rec o g n ize d th a t h e w a s a t f a u lt an d re s p o n sib le f o r th e k id n a p p in g a n d re su ltan t b a tterie s. If a n yth in g , h is s ta te m e n t s o u g h t to b la m e th e v ic tim f o r t h e c ri m e .” ).D u ll u m alt ern ati v elyclaim s th a t th e D istri ct C o u rt 9 m echa ni cal l y deni ed hi s acc ept ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t ydeduct i on beca us e of the o bs t ruct i on- of- j us t i ce e nhance m ent
. T o the c o n tra ry , th e C o u rt d id n o t e v e n m e n tio n th is A p p lica tio n N o te a s th e b a s is f

o r i ts ru lin g a t s e n te n c in g .

20 A p p lica tio n N o tes 4 a n d 5 a p p lyto D u llu m a s w e ll. N o te 4 s t at es t hat“[c ] onductr es ul t i n g i n an enha ncementunder § 3C 1. 1 ( O bs t ruct i ng orI m pedi ng t he A dm i ni s t r at i on of J us t i ce) or di nar i l yindi cat es t hatt he def endanthas notacc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yfor hi s cr i m i nal conduct
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1 A pp. 9 N
. 4. ( A s not ed, D ul l um recei ved a tw o- l evel enhanc ementat s ent enci ng under§ 3C 1. 1. ) N ot e 5 s t at es that“[t ] he s ent enci ng jud g e is i n a u n iqu e p o s iti o n to ev alua te a d ef en d an t’ s acc ept ance of re s pons i bi l i t y . Forthi s r eas on, the det erm i nat i on o f th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e is e n title d to g re a t d e f e re n c e o n re v ie w .” Id

. A p p . N . 5 ; see als o U nited St ates v. Stew art , 452 F. 3d 266, 2 7 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). I n th is c o n tex t, th e C o u rt w a s w e ll w ith in its di s cr et i on t o vary fr om the PSR r ecomm endat i on i n gr ant i ng a o n e -l e v e l d e d u c tio n . * * * * * W e thus aff

i r m the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D is t r i ct C o u rt.