NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0025n.06

No. 14-4281

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEELAN HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: KEITH, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Keelan Harris appeals the 120-month sentence 

imposed after he pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to commit 

wire fraud, seven counts of wire fraud, and four counts of money laundering. Harris argues his 

below-guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM.

I.

Harris, his older brother Kevin Harris (Kevin), and Karen Starr operated two financial 

businesses in Warren, Ohio. Both companies—Complete Developments, LLC (“CDL”), and 

International Investments, Inc. (“I-3”) (“the Companies,” jointly)—offered investment 

opportunities to the general public. Funds could be invested for fixed periods of three, six, or 

twelve months, and were to be used to purchase and trade foreign exchange contracts, develop 

commercial real estate, and invest in other financial products. The Companies promised their 

customers interest payments of seven to twelve percent per month and a return of at least eighty

percent of the principal at the conclusion of the investment period.
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-2-

Kevin was the driving force behind the new ventures. He and his associates established 

the first of the two companies, CDL, in 2006. Harris joined Kevin in November 2006. Harris 

and Starr then set up the second company, I-3. Kevin and Starr together served as the face of the 

businesses. They solicited customers with offers of guaranteed monthly interest payments, 

mainly through profits from foreign exchange and currency trading. Kevin and Starr would then 

identify large investors, called “top members,” and encourage them to recruit new investors. 

Online advertisements for the Companies reached beyond northern Ohio, and many new 

customers came from Canada. Eventually, the Companies had a customer base in the hundreds 

and raised approximately $15.8 million in investment funds.

Harris’s role was mostly behind the scenes. According to customers and employees, 

Harris managed the Companies’ finances and transactions with investors. He opened the 

Companies’ bank accounts and maintained signatory authority. He also supervised the receipt of 

funds wired from customers and managed the interest payments made in return. Harris dealt 

directly with customers in this role. According to bank employees, Harris would deposit and 

withdraw thousands of dollars in cash, sometimes in duffel bags. These transactions were 

typically just under the reporting limit of $10,000. When asked, Harris told bank employees he 

was the owner of a business that helped Canadian customers invest. 

In fact, the Companies invested only a small portion of the $15.8 million. Although the 

Companies advertised foreign exchange trading, neither company had a corporate trading 

account; the only trading occurred in Kevin’s and Starr’s personal and joint trading accounts. 

Kevin and Starr deposited $932,000 into these accounts, including customer funds, but lost 

$911,970. They ceased trading in August 2007, and the remaining funds were not invested as 

advertised. Instead, a large portion of new customer funds were redirected to older customers as 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-3-

purported interest payments, or as repayment of their principal investment at the conclusion of 

the fixed term. The “top members” would receive larger interest payments to create the illusion

of financial health. The Government described the operation as a Ponzi scheme.

The remaining funds were spent on the Companies’ corporate overhead, personal 

expenditures, and other businesses. Harris and Kevin charged $398,000 to the Companies for 

transportation, shopping, and international travel, among other expenses. Harris received rentfree housing and a vehicle, and traveled to China, Colombia, Panama, and the United Arab 

Emirates. Starr received payments of $308,000. Cash withdrawals accounted for another 

$1.9 million. Transfers to other businesses included $3.5 million to RAK Palace Rent-a-Car in 

Abu Dhabi, $760,000 to UCAN for a CDL shell company, and funding for failed ventures in 

China and the country of Georgia. Customer deposits also financed the maintenance of lowvalue rental properties in Warren, Ohio. Further, Harris used I-3 accounts for his own side 

projects, including an adult website and a nightclub in Colombia. At one point, Harris went into 

a bank with a $1,000,000 cashier’s check and told the employees that he was a real-estate 

developer with an international business.

The Companies soon ran into problems. One of CDL’s banks froze its accounts in 

November 2007 after flagging suspicious activity. The bank spoke with Harris, wrote an official 

check for the remaining funds, and closed the accounts. In July 2008, the Companies stopped 

making interest payments to customers. In August 2008, CDL notified customers that all trading 

had been suspended. In October 2008, CDL and I-3 sent additional communications explaining 

that seventy percent of customer funds had been lost, and led customers to believe the remaining 

thirty percent was being held offshore and would eventually be repaid. At the end of the month, 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-4-

CDL told customers that its bank accounts would be involuntarily closed. Both CDL and I-3 

stopped communicating with customers around March 2009. 

On August 20, 2013, a federal grand jury indicted Harris on one count of conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, seven counts of wire fraud, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1343, and four counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). 

The indictment also charged Starr on the first eight counts; she is reportedly a fugitive in the 

United Arab Emirates. Kevin pleaded guilty to a separate indictment in 2012 and received an 

eighty-seven month sentence. Harris pleaded not guilty to the indictment at his initial 

appearance and arraignment, but he later changed his plea to guilty of all charges. There was no 

plea agreement. The Probation Office issued a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) 

calculating a Guidelines imprisonment range of 210 to 262 months and restitution of 

$15,596,345.11. 

At sentencing, Harris objected to the $15.6 million loss amount and 308 victims

attributed to him by the PSR, which affected his base offense level and the recommended 

restitution. He argued he should be held responsible for no more than $120,000 in loss—his 

salary and some expenses. Harris’s cousin Reema Owens testified that Harris “didn’t really 

know what was going on” and “basically did what his brother told him to do.” R. 57, Sentencing 

Tr., PID 395–96. She explained that Kevin was aggressive, controlling, and manipulative. 

Harris also argued that a below-guidelines sentence would be appropriate because the applicable 

fraud guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, overstated the seriousness of the offense when losses are high. 

He presented data from the Sentencing Commission showing that courts across the country 

sentenced defendants with similar loss amounts to a median of fifty-two months, and emphasized 

that Kevin received an eighty-seven month sentence.
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-5-

The district court noted Harris’s objections but found the $15,596,345.11 loss amount

and 308 victim count proper. The court granted Harris a three-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility and calculated a Guidelines range of 151 to 198 months. After reviewing the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court found that a sentence of 120 months would be 

sufficient but not greater than necessary. The court imposed a 120-month sentence on each of 

the twelve counts, to run concurrently, and ordered restitution in the amount of $15,596,345.11.

II.

We review sentencing determinations for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “Sentences are reviewed for procedural 

as well as substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Robinson, 778 F.3d 515, 518 (6th Cir. 

2015). A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the sentencing court “failed to calculate the 

Guidelines range properly; treated the Guidelines as mandatory; failed to consider the factors 

prescribed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); based the sentence on clearly erroneous facts; or failed to 

adequately explain the sentence.” United States v. Coppenger, 775 F.3d 799, 803 (6th Cir. 

2015). A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the sentencing court “imposed a sentence 

arbitrarily, based on impermissible factors, or unreasonably weighed a pertinent factor.” Id.

III.

Harris identifies three procedural errors in the calculation of his Guidelines sentencing 

range, arguing the district court (1) miscalculated the amount-of-loss enhancement by holding 

him accountable for the loss caused by the entire conspiracy, (2) improperly held him 

responsible for all 308 victims when applying the number-of-victims enhancement, and (3) failed 

to rule on his request for a mitigating-role adjustment. 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-6-

A.

Harris first challenges the district court’s application of a twenty-level enhancement for a

loss amount of $15.6 million. See U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). We review the method used to 

calculate loss de novo and the factual loss determination for clear error. United States v. 

Wendlant, 714 F.3d 388, 393 (6th Cir. 2013). The district court must make two distinct findings 

when calculating the loss amount. United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 399–400 (6th Cir. 

2002). First, the district court must make particularized findings about “the scope of the 

defendant’s agreement.” Id. at 400; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & cmt. n.2. This finding

“differentiate[s] between co-conspirators’ varying degrees of culpability.” Campbell, 279 F.3d 

at 400. The district court may consider “any explicit agreement or implicit agreement fairly 

inferred from the conduct of the defendant and others,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2, but mere 

“aware[ness] of the scope of the overall operation” is insufficient, Campbell, 279 F.3d at 400. 

Next, the district court must make particularized findings about “the foreseeability of [the 

defendant’s] co-conspirators’ conduct.” Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Only conduct 

reasonably foreseeable to the particular defendant may be attributed to him. United States v. 

Orlando, 281 F.3d 586, 600 (6th Cir. 2002). But even if the defendant could reasonably foresee 

conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy, the loss from that conduct will only be attributed to the 

defendant if the conduct falls within the scope of his particular agreement. See Campbell, 

279 F.3d at 400.

Here, Harris does not contest the calculation of $15.6 million in loss resulting from 

conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy as a whole, nor does he contest the reasonable 

foreseeability of that conduct. His argument is limited to the district court’s attribution of the 

total loss amount to him. Harris contends the district court failed to make a finding regarding the 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-7-

scope of his agreement, and that there was no evidence that he agreed to the full scope of the 

conspiracy.

At sentencing, the district court acknowledged the requirement that it determine whether 

Harris agreed to jointly undertake the entire scope of the criminal activity. The district court 

then identified the Companies as criminal enterprises and reviewed the different roles played by 

Kevin, Starr, and Harris. It considered Harris’s claim that he acted under his brother’s direction, 

but found that Harris knew the funds were fraudulently obtained, and that although Kevin and 

Starr made the initial false promises to investors through solicitations, Harris managed the 

financial side of the fraud. Thus, the court concluded, Harris knowingly played a critical and 

material role in the success of the scheme. Although mere knowledge of a scheme’s scope does 

not establish agreement, Campbell, 279 F.3d at 400, an active and fundamental role in a fraud

can establish an agreement to undertake the entire scheme. See Kennedy, 714 F.3d at 961 

(holding defendants responsible for the losses of a fraudulent scheme when they “fully 

participated in the fundamental aspect of the scheme”). 

On appeal, Harris argues that the district court did not expressly find that Harris agreed to 

the entire fraud. But, even if the district court’s explanation of its decision to hold Harris 

responsible for the entire loss amount was less than optimal, findings about a defendant’s 

conduct can show the scope of his agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Nazzal, 607 F. App’x 

451, 460 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding findings about defendant’s significant role in the conspiracy 

sufficient); United States v. Valentine, 553 F. App’x 591, 597 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding the district 

court’s findings “substantially compl[ied]” with the scope requirement when findings 

“evidenc[ed] his scope of consent”); United States v. Jackson, 308 F. App’x 899, 907 (6th Cir. 

2009) (holding findings about the extent of defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-8-

sufficient); United States v. Elias, 107 F. App’x 634, 638 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding the district 

court “substantially complied” with the scope requirement when it found conduct from which an 

implicit agreement could be inferred).

The district court’s loss determination was adequately supported by findings addressing

Harris’s involvement in the scheme. The district court relied on the following: Employees of 

the Companies stated that Kevin and Harris ran the businesses together; although Harris claims 

he served as president and CEO of I-3 in name only, at the very least, he was involved in its 

creation and maintained signatory authority; bank employees stated that Harris personally 

opened all of the Companies’ accounts, managed all of the transactions, and represented himself 

as the owner of the business; Harris’s financial responsibilities included making payments to old 

investors out of new investors’ deposits and distributing customer funds for purposes other than 

investment; when investors inquired about payments, Harris misled them. These findings are not 

clearly erroneous and support the ultimate conclusion that Harris agreed to jointly undertake the 

Companies’ fraudulent activities along with Kevin and Starr. Thus, the district court did not err 

by applying a twenty-level amount-of-loss enhancement.

B.

Harris next challenges the district court’s application of a six-level enhancement for 308 

victims. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). We review de novo the legal conclusion whether a person 

qualifies as a victim. United States v. Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012). Harris 

identifies two flaws in the district court’s number-of-victims calculation. First, Harris repeats his 

argument that the district court failed to make the required finding about the scope of his 

agreement. We reject this argument for the reasons already discussed. Second, Harris argues his 

conduct did not proximately cause the victims’ losses. The Guidelines define victim to include 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-9-

“any person who sustained any part of the actual loss,” and actual loss is defined to mean “the 

reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. 

nn.1, 3(A)(i). Harris contends the Sentencing Commission incorporated a proximate-cause 

standard when it adopted the “resulted from” language in the definition of actual loss, citing a 

discussion of “legal causation” in the Commission’s explanation accompanying the amendment. 

U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. II, at 178. He does not challenge the district court’s identification of 308 

persons sustaining pecuniary harm, only whether he caused that harm.

Harris is correct insofar as he asserts the determination of actual loss requires more than 

factual but-for causation. See United States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627, 643–44 (6th Cir. 2013). 

But the Commission’s discussion of “legal causation” is in reference to the adoption of 

reasonable foreseeability as the rule for actual loss. The explanation provides:

The amendment defines “actual loss” as the “reasonably foreseeable 

pecuniary harm” that resulted from the offense. The amendment incorporates this 

causation standard that, at a minimum, requires factual causation (often called 

“but for” causation) and provides a rule for legal causation (i.e., guidance to 

courts regarding how to draw the line as to what losses should be included and 

excluded from the loss determination). Significantly, the application of this 

causation standard in the great variety of factual contexts in which it is expected 

to occur appropriately is entrusted to sentencing judges.

U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. II, at 178. In short, actual loss includes the concept of legal causation, but 

the definition—“the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense”—

provides the standard. Thus, Harris’s causation argument challenges whether the harm was 

reasonably foreseeable to him. The district court found that Harris could reasonably foresee the 

308 victims’ losses because he had “a fundamental, material, and knowledgeable role in the 

conspiracy.” R. 57, Sentencing Tr., PID 446–47. The district court reviewed Harris’s conduct, 

“what he was doing with the money, transferring, wiring, using it for his own personal 

purposes,” and cited evidence that he “knew everything that was going on.” Id. at PID 446. 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-10-

These findings established that Harris “reasonably should have known” loss to the 308 victims 

was “a potential result of the offense” he agreed to commit. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A)(iv). 

Thus, the district court did not err by applying a six-level number-of-victims enhancement.

C.

In his third claim of procedural error, Harris challenges the district court’s failure to 

address and grant a mitigating-role adjustment. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Because the mitigating-role 

adjustment is rooted in relative culpability, see, e.g., United States v. Gabbard, 586 F.3d 1046, 

1052 (6th Cir. 2009), a defendant’s role is compared to that of other participants, defined as 

“person[s] who [are] criminally responsible for the commission of the offense.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1 cmt. n.1. The decision to apply an adjustment “is based on the totality of the 

circumstances and involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the 

particular case.” Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). For that reason, we review the denial of a mitigatingrole reduction for clear error. United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602, 616 (6th Cir. 2015).

Harris argues he requested a mitigating-role adjustment in his sentencing memorandum, 

and the district court improperly failed to make a finding. This aspect of his claim was not 

preserved. Before calculating Harris’s guideline range, the district court stated there would be no 

mitigating-role adjustment; and, complying with United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872–73 

(6th Cir. 2004), at the conclusion of sentencing, the district court asked whether either party had 

any further objections. Harris did not object to the court’s asserted failure to adequately address 

his request. In any event, the district court acknowledged that a mitigating-role adjustment was 

requested and made findings about his role. The court explained that Harris had a “fundamental, 

material, and knowledgeable role” in the conspiracy, R. 57, Sentencing Tr., PID 446, and was 

“more than just a bystander” because he was “critical and material to the success of the 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-11-

conspiracy.” Id. at PID 444; cf. United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772, 783 (6th Cir. 2012) 

(noting the defendant’s “role in the conspiracy was critical to its success”). Harris’s conduct 

establishes that the denial of an adjustment was not clearly erroneous.

IV.

Harris next argues his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

We “apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion review” to this claim. United States v. SolanoRosales, 781 F.3d 345, 355–56 (6th Cir. 2015). This review “take[s] into account the totality of 

the circumstances,” United States v. Ushery, 785 F.3d 210, 223 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gall, 

552 U.S. at 51), and the “inquiry is governed by the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” 

Robinson, 778 F.3d at 519. A below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. United 

States v. Pirosko, 787 F.3d 358, 374 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Sentences within a defendant’s Guidelines 

range are presumptively substantively reasonable, a presumption that naturally extends to 

sentences below the Guidelines range.”); United States v. Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d 1093, 1103 

(6th Cir. 2014) (“The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence, and such sentences are 

presumptively reasonable.”). Thus, “[a]lthough it is not impossible to succeed on a substantivereasonableness challenge to a below-guidelines sentence, defendants who seek to do so bear a 

heavy burden.” United States v. Greco, 734 F.3d 441, 450 (6th Cir. 2013).

Harris contends his below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable because it is 

disproportionate to the seriousness of his offense, greater than necessary to conform to § 3553(a), 

and results in a sentencing disparity. Relying on national sentencing data compiled by the 

Sentencing Commission, he argues his sentence is inconsistent with the general practice of 

district courts. Based on his analysis of the Commission’s 2013 data, the average sentence for a 

defendant who pleaded guilty to an offense without a mandatory minimum and received a 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-12-

twenty-level amount-of-loss enhancement was sixty-two months. Separately, he calculates that

between 2006 and 2012 the average sentence for a fraud defendant with a criminal history 

category of IV was thirty-six months. Harris argues these figures show that his sentence is

greater than necessary to achieve the goals of § 3553(a)(2) (sentencing courts are to consider 

“the need for the sentence imposed” in light of the “seriousness of the offense”) and also

demonstrate an undue sentencing disparity under § 3553(a)(6) (sentencing courts are to “avoid 

unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found 

guilty of similar conduct”). However, assuming Harris’s statistical analysis is correct, his figures 

on twenty-level enhancements and category IV criminal histories were compiled separately and 

fail to account for the fact that he is charged with both the category IV criminal history and the 

twenty-level enhancement, and with other enhancements as well. 

Further, the district court explained why a 120-month sentence comports with 

§ 3553(a)(2). The court noted Harris’s previous fraud convictions and expressed surprise at 

seeing Harris return to federal court. Harris was still on supervised release when the instant

criminal conduct began in 2006. This criminal history distinguished Harris from Kevin, who 

received a lesser sentence in a different court. Although Harris argued he was manipulated by 

Kevin, the district court observed that Harris “got the benefit of being involved,” including “a lot 

of traveling,” the receipt of “a lot of good things,” and “living pretty much the high life.” R. 57, 

Sentencing Tr., PID 457–59. Accordingly, the court determined a 120-month sentence would be 

fair under § 3553(a)(2). Lastly, we have held that § 3553(a)(6) is “an improper vehicle” for 

challenging a within-Guidelines sentence because the Guidelines address the statutory purpose of 

combatting disparity. United States v. Volkman, 797 F.3d 377, 400 (6th Cir. 2015). Harris’s 
No. 14-4281

United States v. Harris

-13-

assertion that his below-Guidelines sentence creates a disparity is therefore misplaced. Harris 

has not met the heavy burden of rebutting the reasonableness of his below-Guidelines sentence.

V.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.