UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL JOSEPH NASCEMBENI, a/k/a Daniel Anthony Nascimbeni,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:13-cr-00025-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: December 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M. 

Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Joseph Nascembeni pled guilty to one count of 

mail fraud and one count of making false statements in an 

application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The 

district court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment on each 

count, to be served concurrently. Nascembeni appeals, 

challenging the two-level enhancement imposed at sentencing 

based on his commission of bankruptcy fraud. We affirm. 

We review the district court’s factual determinations 

as to sentencing enhancements for clear error, United States v. 

Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 2011), and will reverse only 

if “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

has been committed.” United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 

542 (4th Cir. 2005). Relevant conduct includes all actions 

“that occurred during the commission of the offense of 

conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of 

attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that 

offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)

§ 1B1.3(a)(1). A two-level enhancement is warranted for 

bankruptcy fraud as relevant conduct “[i]f the offense involved 

. . . a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the 

course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B).

The offense conduct also includes all acts that “were 

part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as 
3

the offense of conviction.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2); see United 

States v. Johnson, 643 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding 

use of uncharged and unconvicted relevant conduct that was part 

of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the 

offense of conviction).

Here, the district court determined that Nascembeni’s 

conduct of filing a bankruptcy petition using his alias and 

second Social Security card was “part and parcel of the same 

fraudulent behavior” on which his convictions were based. 

Specifically, Nascembeni applied for and received government 

benefits using two different Social Security numbers that had 

been issued to him: one with his name spelled properly, and one 

with his name misspelled. During this same time, Nascembeni 

filed two separate bankruptcy petitions — one in his correct 

name and one using his alias — and received discharges of his 

debts. We find no clear error by the district court in imposing 

the enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9).

Accordingly, we affirm Nascembeni’s sentence. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED