# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 15 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Has sa n Os m an

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 11, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Has sa n Osm an of co ns pi rin g t o f i l e fal se ta x ret ur ns in

v i ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1, ai di ng an d as si st in g in th e pr ep arat io n of fal se ta x
ret ur ns in vi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. § 7 20 6( 2) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2, an d fa il in g t o a pp earat a pr et ria l co nf eren ce in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 3 1 4 6( a)(1 ). The di st ric t co ur t 1

se nt en ced hi m to 10 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d th ree y ears ’ su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He

ap pe al s t he se nt en ce, ch al le ng in g th e ap pl ic at io n of a th ree- le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t

un de r U n it ed St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne § 3B 1.1 (b ), an d th e res tri ct io n on hi s

co m pu te r an d in te rn et us e d u r i ng su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Fro m 20 08 to 20 11
, Osm an op erat ed a sc he m e to pr ep are fal se ta x ret ur ns wit h
Ch ris ti ne Cl au se n, Ch ris ti an a Och ol i, an d Mo W il li am

. The y fil ed ta x ret ur ns in th e

na m es of th em se lv es an d ot he rs

. The fal se ta x ret ur ns so ug ht ov er $9 65 ,00 0 fro m th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e (IRS ). The IRS pa id ab ou t $3 47 ,00 0 in refu nd s, m os tl y in
th e fo rm of pr ep ai d de bi t card s se nt to Osm an an d W il li am

. The co ns pi rat or s in it ia ll y

us ed ta x pr ep a r e r s t o fil e th e fal se ret ur ns

. In Mar ch 20 09
, th ey swi tc he d to ta x

so ftwa re, fil in g th e ret ur ns th em se lv es

. The co ns pi rat or s fil ed m an y ret ur ns fro m th e In te rn et Pro to co l (I P) ad dr es s o f Osm an ’s bu si ne ss , Hot W ire le ss

.

A jury co nv ic te d Osm an on 15 co un ts : on e co un t of co ns pi racy to de frau d th e Uni te d St at es in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1; th irt een co un ts of ai di ng an d as si st in g th e pr ep arat io n of a fal se ta x ret ur n in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 06 (2 ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 2; a n d o n e co un t of fai lu re to ap pe ar at a pr et ria l co nf eren ce in vi ol at io n of 18
U.S.C. § 31 46 (a)( 1)

. The di st ri c t c o u r t im po se d a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b ) fo r m an ag in g an d su pe rv is in g a cri m in al op erat io n wit h fiv e or

m o r e pa rti ci pa nt s. The co ur t al so im po se d a sp eci al co nd it io n res tri ct in g Osm an ’s

co m pu te r us e d ur in g s up erv is ed rel eas e:

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-De f

e n d a n t s ha ll no t po ss es s or us e a co m pu te r or ha ve acce ss to an y

on li ne se rv ic e wit ho ut th e pr io r ap pr ov al of th e U.S. Pro ba ti on an d Pret ria l Serv ic es Offi ce. Defen da nt ’s c oo pe rat io n sh al l in cl ud e, bu t is

no t li m it ed to , al lo win g in st al la ti on of a co m pu te r an d In te rn et

mo n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m a n d / o r i d e n t i f y i n g c o m p u t e r s y s t e ms , In te rn et -cap ab le de vi ces , an d si m il ar m em or y an d el ect ro ni c de vi ces to whi ch he ha s acce ss

. Mo ni to rin g m ay in cl ud e ran do m ex am in at io ns of

co m pu te r syste m s al on g w i t h I nt ern et , el ect ro ni c, an d m ed ia st or ag e de vi ces un de r hi s co nt ro l. The co m pu te r syste m or de vi ces m ay be

rem ov ed fo r a m or e th or ou gh ex am in at io n, if ne ces sa ry

. Defen da nt sh al l

co nt rib ut e to th e co st s of su ch m on it or in g se rv ic es , ba se d on y ou r ab il it y to pa y , as de em ed ap pr op ria te by th e U.S. Pro b a ti on an d Pret ria l Serv ic es Offic e.

On ap pe al
, Osm an ob

jects to th e th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t an d t h e co m pu te r

res tri ct io n.

II.

Osm an ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng th at he was a m an ag er or

su pe rv is or of th e cri m in al act iv it y , an d t h u s s ub ject to a th ree- le ve l se nt en ci ng

e n h a nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b ). Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s
fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Unit ed St at es v. Rei d
, 82 7 F. 3d 79 7, 80 0- 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Whi rl wi nd So ld

ie r , 49 9 F.3 d 86 2, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (n ot in g t ha t “ th e d efen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se ” is a fi nd in g o f fac t).

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne § 3B 1.1 ( b ) req ui res two el em en ts fo r a th ree- le ve l

en ha nc em en t. Fi rs t, th e de fen da nt m us t act as “ m an ag er or su pe rv is or ” of an of fen se

. U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b)

. Seco nd
, th e cri m in al act iv it y m us t in vo lv e “ fiv e or m or e
pa rti ci pa nt s” or be “ ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.” Id

. Osm an do es no t ch al le ng e th e se co nd
el em en t.

-3

-“To qu al ify fo r an ad jus tm en t un de r [§ 3B 1.1 (b )], th e de fen da nt m us t h a v e be en th e or ga ni zer, le ad er, m an ag er, or su pe rv is or of on e or m or e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s.”
Unit ed St at es v. Ha m m er

sc h m id t , 88 1 F.3 d 63 3, 63 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ), qu ot in g U.S.S.G. § 3 B 1 .1 cmt. n.2

. The ev id en ce sh owe d Osm an recr ui te d th e m ajor it y of
fil in g co ns pi rat or s an d co ll ect e d t he ir pe rs on al in fo rm at io n. He th en ov ers aw th e

s t at us of th e ta x ret ur ns , ob ta in in g co rrec te d in fo rm at io n whe re ne ces s a r y. Add it io na ll y , he c o n t r o ll ed th e de po si t of th e frau du le nt refu nd s. The co ns pi rat or s rel ie d o n h im

to sh are t he se fun ds wit h t he m

.

Osm an al so su pe rv is ed Cl au se n, di rect in g he r to fil e at le as t 30 fal se ta x ret ur ns

an d req ui rin g he r to rep or t b ack “ so th at Osm an co ul d tra ck he r pr og res s.” Cl au se n
tra ve le d to Hot W ire le ss on ce a week t o r e c e i v e pe rs on al in fo rm at io n th at Osm an
ga th ered

. Cl au se n m ad e no te s ab ou t th e ret ur ns sh e fil ed

. Sh e ret ur ne d th e no te s to Osm an fo r hi s rev i e w

. O sm an us ed a co m pu te r at Hot W ire le ss to ch eck th e st at us of ret ur ns

. He co nt act ed Cl au se n if th e IRS reject ed a ret ur n. He al so co nt ro ll ed th e ad dr es se s whe re th e IRS se nt t h e r e f u n ds

. And he co nt ro ll ed ho w m uc h Cl au se n

rece iv ed fro m th e refu nd s. At tri al
, Cl au se n te st ifi ed sh e fel t li ke sh e wor ke d fo r Osm an

.

The se fact s su pp or t th e fin di ng th at Osm an m an ag ed or su pe rv is ed a cri m in al

act iv it y

. Se e Unit

ed St a t e s v . M

i ck le
, 46 4 F.3 d 80 4, 80 7- 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (u ph ol di ng a U.S.S.G. § 3 B 1 .1(a ) en ha nc em en t fo r de fen da nt s who “ recr ui te d

acco m pl ic es , he lp ed pl a n th e of fen se , cl ai m ed a rig ht to a gr eat er sh are of th e
pr oc eed s, an d ex erci s e d c o n t ro l ov er ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s by se tt in g th e te rm s of th e

arra ng em en t” ); Unit

ed St at e s v . Lov el

es s , 13 9 F.3 d. 58 7, 59 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (aff irming a th ree- le ve l U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b ) en h a nc em en t fo r a de fen da nt who

co nt ro ll ed th e fin an ces of a cri m in al sc he m e); Unit ed St at es v. Fl or es , 73 F.3 d 82 6,
83 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (aff

irming a th ree- le ve l U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b ) en ha nc em en t fo r a de fen da nt who pl an ne d a nd org an iz ed lar ge sca le dru g d is tri bu ti on s)

.

-4

-Osm an arg ue s he co ul d no t ha ve b e e n a m an ag er be cau se Cl au se n be ga n th e

sc he me. B u t th is is no t de te rm in at iv e. “ The en ha nc em en t do es no t ap pl y so le ly t o th os e who fir st in st ig at ed th e cri m in al act iv it y , an d th e de fen da nt ne ed no t be th e on ly

or ga ni zer or le ad er.” Unit ed St at es v. Bo ld en , 59 6 F.3 d 97 6, 98 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Se e
ge ne ra ll y Unit ed St at es v. I r l m e i er , 75 0 F.3 d 75 9, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (th is co ur t de fin es “ m an ag er” a nd “ su pe rv is or ” “ qu it e li be ral ly”).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g a th ree- le ve l se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t

un de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1. 1 ( b ) f o r Osm an ’s ro le as a m an ag er or su pe rv is or of th e cri m in al act iv it y

.

III.

Osm an ch al le ng es th e co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e res tri ct in g hi s co m pu te r

us e. Bec au s e h e fai le d to ob ject to th e co nd it io n in th e di st ric t co ur t, th is co ur t

rev ie ws fo r pl ai n erro r. Se e Puck et t v . U n i t e d S t at es , 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 13 5 (2 00 9) (rev ie win g for pl ai n erro r whe re defe nd an t fail ed to ob ject in di st ric t cou rt) ; Unit ed
St at es v. Ri st in e , 33 5 F.3 d 69 2, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (s am e). Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, Osm an m us t sh ow: “ (1 ) th ere is erro r, (2 ) th a t i s p l a i n , (3 ) th at affe ct s a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht
, an d (4 ) th at se rio us ly a f f e c t s t h e in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l

pr oc eed in gs .” Unit

ed St at es v. Lond

on di o , 42 0 F.3 d 77 7, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), ci ti ng Unit ed Sta te s v. Ol

an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 2- 36 (19 93 ).

A sp eci al c o n d it io n of rel eas e “ m us t be su pp or te d by pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s
sp eci fic to th e de fen da nt , rat he r th an be cat eg or ic al ly ap pl ie d to al l th os e fo un d gu il ty of co m m it ti ng th at o f

f e n s e .” Unit

ed St at es v. Wes t , 82 9 F.3 d 10 13
, 10 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Wi ed

ow er , 63 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 5- 96 (8 th Ci r. 2 01 1) (rev ers in g, on ab us e-o f-d is cret io n rev ie w, a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t in di vi du al ly an al y ze th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of th e res tri ct io n)

. The go ve rn m en t ag rees th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s to

-5

-su pp or t th e res tri c t i o n o n co m pu te r an d in te rn et us e. Fai lu re to m ak e th es e
pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s is pl ai n erro r. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ca rs on , 92 4 F.3 d 46 7, 47 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (“ W e ag ree wit h Cars on th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d by fai li ng
to m ak e an y effo rt to su pp or t th e ch al le ng ed co nd it io ns (o r an y ot he r sp eci al

co nd it io n) wit h i nd iv id ua li zed fin di ng s.”)

.

Howev er, Osm an “ m

us t st il l sh ow th e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Id

.

“ Wh e re th e ba si s fo r an im po se d co nd it io n is su ffi ci en tl y ev id en t an d can be
d i sc ern ed fro m th e reco rd
, rev ers al is no t req ui red by a la ck of in di vi du a l i z e d
fin di ng s.” Id

. Se e Unit

ed St at es v. Scha efer , 6 75 F.3 d 11 22 , 1 12 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ( “Wh i l e th is co ur t en co ur ag es de ta il ed fin di ng s, it is en ou gh th at th e ba si s fo r th e im po se d c on di ti on can be di sc ern ed fro m th e rec or d.” ).

The reco rd su pp or ts th e sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Osm an sen t

em ai ls in st r u c t i n g C la us en to fil e fal se ta x ret ur ns

. All of th e ta x ret ur ns us ed a

co m pu te r. The co ns pi rat or s fil ed ta x ret ur ns fro m an IP ad dr es s at Hot W ire le ss

. The

us e of co m

pu te rs an d th e in te rn et was cen tra l to th e cri m in al op erat io n. Se e Unit ed
St at es v. Wes t , 82 9 F.3 d 10 13
, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta ti ng th at “ a res tri ct io n co ul d
be up he ld if t he co nd uc t at is su e...was c en tra l t o [t he de fen da nt ’s] off en se ”).

Fu rth er, th e co m

pu te r res tri ct io n do es no t im po se an un ne ces sa ry de pr iv at io n of li be rty. Osm an m ay acce s s a c o mp u t e r wit h th e ap pr ov al an d m on it or in g of th e U.S. Pro ba ti on an d Pret ria l Serv ic es Offi ce. Thu s, he is no t ab so lu te ly pr oh ib it ed
fro m co m pu te r us e du rin g su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Goe tt

sc h
, 81 2
F.3 d 11 69
, 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ The co m pu te r an d in te rn et res tri ct io n im po se d by
th e di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e is reas on ab le be cau se it is no t a to ta l ba n on in te rn et an d

co m pu te r us e. Goe tt sc h m ay acce ss co m pu te rs fo r em

pl oym en t pu rp os e s an d m ay ob ta in p e r mi s s i o n fro m hi s pr ob at io n of fic er to us e a co m

pu te r fo r an y ot he r le gi ti m at e pe rs on al pu rp os e.”); Unit ed St at es v. Muh le nb ru ch
, 68 2 F.3 d 10 96
, 11 04

- 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [W] e fin d th at th e re s t r i c t i on s do no t in vo lv e a gr eat er

-6

-de pr iv at io n of li be rty th an is r e a s o na bl y ne ces sa ry un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces

. The

co nd it io ns do no t am ou nt to a to ta l ba n on co m pu te r an d in t e r n e t a cces s be cau se Mu hl en br uc h ‘can se ek pe rm is si on fro m hi s pr ob at io n of fic er to pe rfo rm th e

res tri ct ed act iv it ie s.’”).

Osm an rel ie s on Uni te d St at es v. W es t , 82 9 F.3 d 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) to arg ue th e co nd it io n i s i nv al id . There , th is co ur t v acat ed a co nd it io n of s up erv is ed rel eas e th at res tri ct ed co m

pu te r us e fo r a ta x eva de r who pr om ot ed hi s vi ews on li ne

. Wes t , 82 9 F.3 d at 10 13

. Bu t th is cas e di ffer s fro m W es t in si gn ifi can t way s. The de fen da nt in W es t ne ve r us ed a co m

pu te r to m an ag e or su pe rv is e a cri m in al sc he m e. Id

. In fact
, th e cri m in al a c t i v i ty th ere, fai lu re to fil e a ta x ret ur n, di d no t rel y on co m pu te r or in te rn et us e. Id

. Fi na ll y , th e W

es t de fen da nt ob

jecte d to hi s co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed
rel eas e at sen te nc in g, an d re vi ew was for ab us e of di sc ret io n, no t pl ai n erro r. Id

. at
10 17

.

Osm an ’s ch al l e n g e is wit ho ut m eri t. The di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to m ak e
pa rti cu la riz ed fin di ng s d id no t af fect Osm an ’s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts

.

IV.

In a su pp le m en ta l b rie f, Osm an pr es en ts th ree is su es

. Fi rs t, he ob jects to th e
two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r us in g so ph is ti cat ed m ean s. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at he us ed fak e em

pl oyers, st ol en id en ti ti es , di ffer en t ad dr es se s an d P.O. bo xe s, an d th at th e sc he m e was co m

pl ex , rep et it iv e, an d co or di na te d. Se e U.S.S.G. §
2B 1.1 (b)( 10 )(C) & cmt. n.9 (B)

. The se fin di ng s are no t cl earl y erro ne ou s an d
ad eq ua te ly sup po rt t he en ha nc em en t. Se e 8t h Cir . R. 47 B

.

Seco nd
, Osm an be li ev es th e di st ric t co ur t d i d no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n it s

s e n t en ce. To th e co nt rary, on th is pl ai n erro r rev ie w, th e di st ric t co ur t ad eq ua t e l y

ex pl ai ne d it s wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Bi st ru p , 44 9 F.3 d 87 9,

-7

-88 3- 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (th e se nt en ci ng co ur t ne ed no t “ rep eat al l of it s fin di ng s whe n

it de ci de s on a sp eci fic te rm of im pr is on m en t” ); Unit

ed St at es v. Fee m st

er , 57 2 F.3 d
45 5, 46 1- 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (th is co ur t m ay gi ve a pr es um pt io n of

reas on ab le ne ss to a wit hi n- gu id el in es sen te nc e); 8th Cir. R. 47 B

.

Thi rd
, fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al
, Osm an as se rts th e r e w a s in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce fo r th e am ou nt s of lo ss an d res ti tu ti on

. To th e co nt rary, th e am ou nt s li st ed
in th e su pe rced in g in di ct m en t and th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep or t s up po rt t he

am ou nt s o f lo ss an d re st it ut io n. Se e 8t h Cir . R. 47 B

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-8

-