2007 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 6-28-2007 

# U SA v . S mith P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3635

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_2007

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 2007 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 . S mith" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 867. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/867H o n . L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern * D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 3635

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T OP HE R S M I T H, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00414) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 8, 2007 B efor e: FI SH E R and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge *

OP I NI ON

____C o n v e n ien c e c h e c k s a re sp e c ial c h e c k s is su e d b y c re d it ca rd c o m p a n ies to 1 c a rd h o ld e rs, a llo w in g th e c a rd h o ld e r to w rite th e c h e c k a g a in st h is/h e r lin e o f c re d it. Th e f i r s t c o n v e n i e n c e c h e c k , i n t h e a mou n t o f $ 7 , 5 0 0 , was d e p o s i t e d i n t o a n ATM 2 m achi n e a t a b r a n c h o f t h e M & T Ba n k i n Cha mbe r s b u r g , PA o n Apr i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . I tw as negot i at ed i nt o B i ngaman’ s bank acc ount . T he s econd chec k, al s o i n the amountof $7, 500, 2 PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge De f e n d a n t - Ap p e l l a n tCh r i s t o p h e rS mi t h a p p e a l s h i s p r i s o n s e n t e n c e o f th i r t y - t wo m ont hs on t he gr ounds t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our terr ed ( a) i n t he ca l cul at i on of hi s s ent ence , ( b) i n notal l ow i ng w i t hdr aw al hi s gui l t ypl ea t o cons pi r acy , and ( c) i n ent er i ng a s ent ence t hatw as unr eas onabl e. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) ( 1) . For t he r eas ons expl ai ned her ei n, w e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence . I. M uch of Sm i t h’ s appea l conce r ns a fa ctual di s put e abouthi s l evel of i nvol vement i n t he cons pi r acyand i n r el at ed ac t i vi t y . O n O ct ober19, 2005, C hr i s t opherSm i t h and K i m ber l yB i ngaman w er e cha r ged i n a thr ee- counti ndi ctm entw i t h cons pi r acy , bank fr aud, and theftand pos s es s i on of art i cl es s t ol en fr om the U ni t ed St at es m ai l s . T he governm ent ’ s al l egat i ons , as s ubs equent l ypart i cul ar i zed a tSm i t h’ s change
- of- pl ea hear i ng, w er e as fol l ow s : B etw een A pr i l 26, 2005 and J une 19, 2005, Sm i t h and B in g a m a n sto le f

o u r c re d it ca rd “ c o n v e n ien c e c h e c k s” f ro m th e m a ilb o x o f

th e ir 1
n e ig h b o r, D e n ise S tau b . B in g a m a n e n d o rse d th e c h e c k s a n d th e d e f e n d a n ts a ttem p ted to depos i tt hem atvar i ous banks . O nl yone of the fourchec ks w as s ucce s s ful l ynegot i at ed. 2w as depos i t ed i nt o an A T M m achi ne ata br anch of the M & T B ank i n C hamber s bur g, PA on M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e th ird c h e c k , in th e a m o u n t o f $ 7 ,0 0 0 , w a s a ttem p ted to b e d e p o site d in to a ne w a c c ou nt i n Bi ng a man’ s na me a t a br a nc h of t he O r r s t own B a nk i n Cha mber s bu r g, PA o n M a y2 6 , 2 0 0 5 . Th e f o u r t h c h e c k , i n th e a mou n to f $ 9 , 0 0 0 , was d e p o s i t e d i n t o a n ATM m achi ne ata br anch of

t he M & T B ank i n G r eenc as t l e, PA on J une 19, 2005. O n lythe f

ir st ch ec k w as su cc essf

u ll yn eg o ti ated . T h e se co n d an d thir d ch ec k s w ere not negot i at ed. T he four t h chec k w as i ni t i al l y negot i at ed i nt o an M & T B ank ac count , w hi ch w a s th e n im m e d ia te ly f

ro z e n u p o n d is c o v e ry o f th e b a n k f

ra u d . See A ppel l ant ’ s M em. at7. 3 D ur i ng t hi s s ame t i m e per i od, Sm i t h and B i ngaman acqui r ed a c r edi tcar d s t ol en fr om t he mai l box of anothernei ghbor , B r i t t anyH opki ns , and ther eaf t erm ade s ever al c re d it c a rd p u rc h a s e s . O n J une 30, 2005, B i ngaman w as i nt ervi ew ed bya pos t al i ns pect oraboutthe s t ol en che cks . She t ol d t he i ns pect orthatherboy fr i end, C hr i s t opherSm i t h, had bee n t he
m a ste rm in d o f

th e c rim in a l sc h e m e . S h e e x p lain e d th a t S m ith h a d b ro u g h t th e c h e c k s to h e r a n d a sk e d h e r to sig n th e m , tellin g h e r th a t th e yw e re lo a n c h e c k s a n d th a t sh e c o u ld notgeti n t r oubl e. O n one occ as i on, acc or di ng t o B i ngaman, Sm i t h acc om pani ed B i ngaman t o t he O r r s t ow n B ank and i ns t ruct ed hert o att empt t o cas h a che ck byt el l i ng t he bank t el l ert hatt he pay ee on the che ck w as herm other . B i ngaman cont i nued that , on an o ther o cc asio n , S m ith ac co m p an ied h er to a n A T M m ac h ine, w h ere h e g av e h er a s t ol en A T M car d and PI N num berand had he rat t empt t o cas h anotherof the che cks t h r o u g h t h e A T M. Sm i t h i ni t i al l ypl ed notgui l t y , butthen dec i ded t o change hi s pl ea pur s uantt o a p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e p lea a g re e m e n t p ro v id e d th a t S m ith w o u ldT h e a tte m p te d lo s s o f th e s u c c e s s f u lly-n e g o tia te d c h e c k w a s $ 7 ,5 0 0 , see supra n o te 3 2, butt hatw as notdi s cus s ed att he cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng. 4 pl ead gui l t yt o one countof cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 19 U . S. C . § 371 and, i n turn, the governm entw oul d m ove ats ent enci ng forthe di s m i s s al of the bank f r aud countand the th e f t a n d p o s s e s s io n c o u n t. A 2 1 . O n M ar ch 14, 2006, t he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng. A tthe h e a rin g , the g o v e rn m e n t ex p lain e d w h a t ev id e n c e it w o u ld u se if th e m a tter w e re to pr ocee d t o t r i al . T he governm entdes cr i bed how “one of the s t ol en che cks w as s ucce s s ful l ynegot i at ed byB i ngaman, r es ul t i ng i n a l os s of appr oxi m at el y$2, 136. 90. T he ot hert hr ee a t t empt s w er e uns ucce s s ful r es ul t i ng i n no l os s es . T hes e uns ucce s s ful at t empt s ent ai l ed appr oxi m at el y$24, 000 i n s t ol en che cks . ” A 63. B efor e ac cept i ng t he 3 p lea , the c o u rt in q u ire d w h e th e r S m ith u n d e rsto o d th a t th e in ten d e d lo ss — a s o p p o se d to t he ac tual l os s — coul d be a f act ori n t he s ent enci ng cal cul at i on: C o u rt: D o y ou fur t herunder s t and thaty ourgui del i ne w i l l be dr i ven bythe amount of the l os s and the l os s coul d i ncl ude the expe ct ed orthe att empt ed e ff ort s t ha ty ou made t o c a s h c he c ks e ve n tho ug h y ou di dn ’ tr e c e i ve mone y ? So t he pot ent i al w e’ r e l ooki ng ather e i s pr obabl yover$25, 000 of att empt ed lo s s . . . . [S m it h ’s atto rn ey ]: Y ourH onor , thathas been e xpl ai ned t o M r . Sm i t h. A 65. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt her eaf t eracc ept ed Sm i t h’ s pl ea. A 66. I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, the pr obat i on offi ce pr epar ed a pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor t( PSR ) . T he PSR cal cul at ed the t ot al i nt ended l os s fr om the four chec ks as $31, 000. PSR at4. B efor e s ent enci ng, defe ndants ubm i t t ed a mem or andumT he governm ent d id n o t have the cha nge- of- pl ea tr ans cr i ptw i t h i tdur i ng t he 4 s ent enci ng. T he tr ans cr i pti s par t of t he re cor d on appea l . R evi ew of t he t r ans cr i ptm akes it cle a r th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t ca lcu late d th e in ten d e d lo ss f ro m th e th re e u n su c c e ss f u l atte m p ts 5 obj ect i ng t o t he $31, 000 l os s fi gur e, s t at i ng that“dur i ng the negot i at i ons w i t h t he governm entl eadi ng t o t he s i gni ng of the Pl ea A gr eementand i n t he s t at ement s m ade d u rin g th e C h a n g e o f

P lea h e a rin g , itis o b v io u s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t in ten d to char ge M r . Sm i t h w i t h t he ent i r e amountof the i nt ended l os s i n t he s cope of the cons pi r acybutonl yw i t h $24, 000. ” A 51. Sm i t h’ s s ent enci ng w as hel d on J ul y31, 2006, and the D i s t r i ctC our ti nqui r ed aboutSm i t h’ s obj ect i on t o t he t ot al l os s fi gur e: C o u rt: T h a t las t se n ten c e , itsa y s, d u rin g th e n e g o tiatio n s w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, e tc., e tc., it i s o b v io u s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t in ten d to c h a rg e M r. S m ith w i t h t he ent i r e amountof the i nt ended l os s i n t he s cope of the cons pi r acy , but onl yw i t h $24, 000. [G o v er n m en t]: T h at i s sim p lyn o t correc t, Y o u r H o n o r. T h e $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 fig u re r epr es ent ed the G overnm ent ’ s bes ti nform at i on and es t i m at e r egar di ng the l os s at th e tim e , b u t th e U n ited S tate s d o e s n o t b a rte r a w a yp a rts o f c o n sp ira c ies . A n d if [S m i t h’s att orney ] had t hat i m press i on , that i m press i on w as ent i rel yerr on eou s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t p ro v id e d in f o rm a tio n w h ich c o n f

irm e d so m e $ 2 4 ,0 0 0 in chec k fr aud. I tappea r s w i t h t he pr epar at i on of the pr e- s ent ence r epor tthat , that a m o u n t g ro w s b ya b o u t $ 6 ,0 0 0 , b u t at n o tim e d id th e G o v e rn m e n t re p re se n t to [Sm i t h’ s at t or ney ] t hati tw oul d nottr yt o pur s ue r el evantconductthatw as partof t he ca s e. A 73–A 74. T he D i s t r i ctC our tand the part i es cont i nued t o di s cus s the l os s fi gur e, and the g o v ern m en t st ated that an yco n fu sion b etw ee n the $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 fig u re a n d the $ 3 1 , 0 0 0 fig u re w as bas ed on the governm ent ’ s err oneous cal cul at i on of the aggr egat e l os s . T he 4t o n ego t i at e chec ks at$2 4, 00 0 , d if f e renti at i ng t his l oss fr om t he $ 2, 13 6. 90 actual l oss r es ul t i ng fr om Sm i t h and B i ngaman’ s s ucce s s ful negot i at i on of the fi r s t chec k. A 63. T he di s pos i t i on of the fourchec ks i s out l i ned supra , not e 2. 6 f o llo w in g c o llo q u ye n su e d : C o u rt: T he pr obl em I ha ve i s t hat , bas ed on the pl ea tr ans cr i pt , appar ent l yhe w as pl eadi ng t o $24, 000. [G o v er n m en t]: I d o n ’t th in k th a t’s c o rre c t, Y o u r H o n o r. I th in k th a t w h a t it r efl ect s i s t hat , w hen [a not hergovernm entat t orney ] cover ed the pl ea a nd gave a bas i s , a fa ctual bas i s , he us ed the err oneous fi gur e thatI had i ni t i al l ycal cul at ed, butt hatt he pl ea c ol l oquyw i l l r efl ectthatthi s D efe ndantunder s t ood t hathe fa ced anysent ence u p to the st atutorym axim um of f i ve y ears . T here w as no st i pu l at i on i n the pl ea agreem ent as t o loss . T here w as, as I conce de, an err oneous i ni t i al es t i m at e as t o w hatthatl os s w oul d be. T hat err oneous i ni t i al es t i m at e w as off bys om e $7, 000, w hi ch af fec t s thes e gui del i nes b ytw o o f

f e n s e le v e ls . . . . T h e C o u rt: I r e a l i z e t h a th e i s s u b j e c tt o th e ma x i mu m p e n a l t y , b u ta tth e s a me tim e , h e k n o w s th a t p a rt o f th e s e n te n c e is g o in g to b e b a s e d o n th e g u id e lin e s . A nd i f he w as undert he i m pr es s i on thathe w as pl eadi ng t o $24, 000, i s thatan i nt el l i gentand know i ng — [G o v er n m en t]: I ’ m s ay i ng, i f [M r . Sm i t h] ul t i m at el ybel i eves thathi s pl ea w as notknow i ng and i nt el l i gent , t hen w e oughtt o l i t i gat e hi s r i ghtt o w i t hdr aw that pl ea, and the G overnm entt hen oughtt o have the opportuni t yt o br i ng anyot her char ges t hatt he evi dence w oul d bearher e, char ges thatthe G overnm entdeci ded t o for go w hen the pl ea t ook pl ace . S o I th in k th is D e f

e n d a n t h a s to m a k e a ju d g m e n t o n w h a t itis th a t h e is a sk in g f o r. W h a t h e is a sk in g f o r rig h t n o w is n o t an o p p o rtu n ityto w ith d ra w h is p lea a p p a re n tly , b u t an o p p o rtu n ityto re f o rm a n d re f

ra m e h is p lea a g re e m e n t. A 78 –A 80 . U l t i m at el y , t he D i stri ctC ou rtrul ed that“t he C ou rtw i l l use t he int end ed loss as t o t he ent i r e cons pi r acy , ” w hi ch w as $31, 000. A 124–A 125. A t S m ith ’s s e n ten c in g , B in g a m a n w a s c a lled to tes tify , an d th e v e rsio n o f e v e n ts s he gave w as m arkedl yi ncons i s t entw i t h heror i gi nal t es t i m onyt o t he pos t al i ns pect oron J une 30, 2005. A tSm i t h’ s s ent enci ng, B i ngaman t es t i fi ed thats he had pl anned the7

chec k- cas hi ng s cheme w i t houtSm i t h’ s know l edge a nd thatSm i t h hadn’ tt aken a nys t eps to e n d o rse o r n e g o tiate a n yo f th e f o u r c h e c k s. S h e f

u rth e r te stif

ied th a t w h e n S m ith acc om pani ed hert o t he O r r s t ow n B ank, he di d notknow thatthe che ck B i ngaman w as t her e t o negot i at e w as a s t ol en conve ni ence chec k. She cl ai m ed thati tw as onl yaft ert he O r r s t ow n B ank i nci dentt hats he made Sm i t h aw ar e of he rcr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. W hen as ked w hyheracc ountof the eve nt s had bee n s o r adi cal l ydi ffe r entw hen s he w as i nt ervi ew ed byt he pos t al i ns pect or , B i ngaman t es t i fi ed thats he had pl ace d t he bl ame on Sm i t h “[b] eca us e I w as ni ne mont hs pr egnant[w i t h Sm i t h’ s baby ] , and [Sm i t h] w as a lr e a d yin ja il, a n d I d id n ’t w a n t to g o to ja il.” A 9 6 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtw as not pers uad ed b yB i ng am an’s t est i m on ythat Sm i t h w as a m ino r pa rt ici p an t i n the c ri m e. T o the c o n tr ary , the c o u rtd eterm ined that B ing am an ’s J une 2005 s t at ementt o t he pos t al i ns pect orw as m or e cr edi bl e than B i ngaman’ s J ul y2006 te s tim o n ya t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . Att h e c l o s e o f

t h e h e a r i n g , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ts e n t e n c e d S mi t h t o a th i r t y - t wo m o n th te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. II. S m ith raises f

ive a rgu m en ts on ap p ea l. S m ith co n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed in ( 1) cal culat i ng t he loss caused byhis cri m es at$3 1, 00 0; ( 2) r ai si ng the o ffen se l evel t w o l evel s underU . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 10) ( C ) ( I ) ; ( 3) fai l i ng t o gr anthi m a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entunderU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) ; ( 4) fai l i ng t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea;8

and ( 5) ent er i ng an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . W e conduc ta de novo r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e s , b u t r e v ie w f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 302 F. 3d 1 3 9 , 1 5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e re v ie w th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1

– 6 2 (2 0 0 5 ).

A. Sm i t h’ s fi r s tcont ent i on i s t hat , w hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned the b a se o f f e n se lev e l f

o r h is c o n sp ira c yc o n v ictio n u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 (a ), ite rre d in cal cul at i ng t he t ot al at t empt ed l os s as $31, 000 i ns t ead of $24, 000. W e di s agr ee. T he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a fac tual fi ndi ng t hatthe aggr egat e l os s fi gur e w as $31, 000, and the rul i ng w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. S m i t h m akes t hree argum ents i n sup po rtof h i s content i on that the ap propri at e l oss fi gur e w as $24, 000. H e cont ends t hat1) “thatthe governm ent , i n good fai t h dur i ng the pl ea ne got i at i ons w i t h M r . Sm i t h, us ed the i nt ended l os s fi gur e of $24, 000, ” l eadi ng Sm i t h t o bel i eve thatt he $24, 000 fi gur e w oul d be us ed i n hi s s ent enci ng cal cul at i on; 2) t hatatt he pl ea he ar i ng t he governm entagai n us ed an i nt ended l os s fi gur e of $24, 000; and 3 ) th a t B in g a m a n ’s te stim o n ya t S m ith ’s s e n ten c in g m a d e it cle a r th a t S m ith d id n o t jo in t he cons pi r acyunt i l aft erone, and perhaps tw o, of the conve ni ence chec ks had bee n negot i at ed orat t empt ed t o be negot i at ed, and s o t he i nt ended l os s fr om hi s r el evantT he appl i cat i on not e t o § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) di r ect s thatl os s i s m easur ed bythe “gr eat er 5 o f a c tu a l lo ss o r in ten d e d lo ss .” § 2 B 1 .1 c m t. n .3 . “ A c tu a l lo ss ” is de f in e d a s the “ re a so n a b ly for es eea bl e pecuni ary harm t hatr es ul t ed fr om t he off ens e. ” I d. n. 3(A )( I) . “Int end ed loss ” i s defi ned as “the pec un iaryharm thatw as i nt ended t o r es ul tfr om the off ens e. ” I d. n .3 (A )( ii) . 9 conducts houl d be ca l cul at ed ac cor di ngl y . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at13. W e addr es s t he fi r s tt w o ar gum ent s t ogether . A tthe cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng, the g o v e rn m e n t d e sc rib e d th e lo ss a s f o llo w s: “ o n e o f

th e sto len c h e c k s w a s s u c c e ss f u lly negot i at ed byB i ngaman, r es ul t i ng i n a l os s of appr oxi m at el y$2, 136. 90. T he otherthr ee at t empt s w er e uns ucce s s ful r es ul t i ng i n no l os s es . T hes e uns ucce s s ful at t empt s ent ai l ed ap p rox im ately$ 2 4 , 0 0 0 in stolen ch ec k s. ” A 6 3 . Itis ev iden t th at th e $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 fig u re des cr i bed the i nt ended l os s fr om t he thr ee uns ucce s s ful at t empt s , i n contr as tt o t he ac tual l os s fr om t he one s ucce s s ful at t empt , w hi ch w as thoughtt o be $2, 136. 90. A tthe t i m e of the p lea h ea ri n g , the “ inten d ed loss” o f th e f ir st ch ec k w as n o t discu ssed , b u t th e c o u rt broug ht t o S m i t h’s att enti on t hat hi s “guidel i ne w i l l be d ri ven bythe am ou nt of the loss and t hat l oss could i nclude t he ex pected or at t em pted effort s that [he] m ade to cash c h e c k s e v e n th o u g h [ h e ] d id n ’t re c e iv e m o n e y ,” a n d th a t th e c o u rt w a s “ lo o k in g a t . . . p ro b a b lyo v e r $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 o f a ttem p ted lo ss .” B e c a u se th e $ 2 4 ,0 0 0 f ig u re w a s s u b

jec t to e n la rg e m e n t to in c lu d e th e in te n d e d lo s s f ro m th e f ir s t c h e c k

— $ 7 ,5 0 0 , see supra , n o te 2

— the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n m ak ing the f ac tual d eterm ination that the e n ti re i nt ended l os s w as $31, 000. 5 T o be s ur e, once the $24, 000 fi gur e w as us ed atthe pl ea he ar i ng, both t heA t s ent enci ng, t he gover nm ent t ol d t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hati t s “i ni t i al as s es s m entof 6 t he l os s w as $24, 000 [; ] t hat es t i m at e w as err oneous . ” Thus, even though the tr ans cr i ptof the c h an g e-o f-p lea h ea ri n g sh o w s that the g o v ern m en t nev er stated that the to tal loss f igu re w as $24, 000, w e w il l as s um e thatbot h par t i es coul d have ope r at ed underthe mi s t aken as s um pt i on t hatt he aggr egat e i nt ended l os s as s ert ed bythe governm entw as $24, 000. 10 governm entand Sm i t h m ayhave be l i eved thatthi s r epr es ent ed the aggr egat e l os s . B ut 6 t he part i es nevers t i pul at ed t o a $24, 000 i nt ended l os s i n t he pl ea a gr eement . T o t he contr ary , t he pl ea a gr eements t at ed that“[t ] he def endantfur t heragr ees thatanyl egal and fac tual i s s ues r el at i ng t o t he appl i cat i on of the Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes t o t he defe ndant ’ s conduct , i ncl udi ng fac t s thats uppor tanys peci fi c off ens e cha r act er i s t i c or o ther e n h an ce m en t or ad justm en t and the a p p rop ri ate se n tenc e w ith in the statu tory m a x im u m s p ro v id e d f

o r b ylaw , w ill b e d e ter m in e d a t a s e n ten c in g h e a rin g .” A 2 1 ; s ee al s o A 29. ( “The defe ndantunder s t ands thatthe C our ti s nota part yt o and i s notbound b yth is a g re e m e n t o r a n yre c o m m e n d a tio n s m a d e b yth e p a rties . T h u s, th e C o u rt is f re e to i m pos e upon the def

endantanys ent ence up t o and i ncl udi ng the maxi m um s ent ence of im p ri so n m en t fo r 5 y ea rs . . . . ”). S m ith fu rth er a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld h av e c red it ed B ing am an ’s t es t i m onyats ent enci ng t hatSm i t h j oi ned the cons pi r acyaft erthe fi r s t , and pos s i bl yt he s econd, chec k had bee n s oughtt o be negot i at ed, and thus the l os s fr om the fi r s tchec k ( or t w o) s houl d nothave be en count ed as partof Sm i t h’ s r el evantoffe ns e conduc t . T he D istri ct C o u rtinstead cre d it ed B ing am an ’s i n it ial test im o n yto the p o stal insp ec tor, fi ndi ng t hatSm i t h had bee n i nvol ved i n t he ent i r etyof the cons pi r acyand w as thus11

res po nsi ble for the en t i retyof the l oss. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n cr edi t i ng B i ngaman’ s J une 2005 s t at ementt o t he pos t al i ns pect orr atherthan the r adi cal l ydi ver gentacc ounts he pr es ent ed att he J ul y2006 s ent enci ng hear i ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tobs erved thatB i ngaman’ s ear l i er t est i m on yt o the post al i nspector w as cl oser i n ti m e t o the cr i m i nal cond uct and w as l ess li k elyto h av e b ee n inf

luen ce d b yS m ith . A 1 2 5 . T h e c o u rtalso fo u n d that B ing am an ’s J une 2005 ac countm ade mor e s ens e i n l i ghtof the part i es ’ r es pect i ve cr i m i nal hi s t or i es — Sm i t h had s ever al pr i orconvi ct i ons , i ncl udi ng convi ct i ons fori dent i t ytheftor for geryoffe ns es , w her eas “B i ngaman . . . had no pr i orexper i ence i n t hi s type of c r i m i nal offe ns e. ” A 125. W ei ghi ng t he cr edi bi l i t yof a w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyi s a det erm i nat i on a d is tr ic t c o u rt is b e s t s u ite d to m a k e , a n d s u c h d e te rm in a tio n is e n title d to d e f e re n c e . See 18 U . S. C . § 3742( e) ( “[I n r evi ew i ng a s ent ence , ] [t ] he courtof appe al s s hal l gi ve due re g a rd to th e o p p o rt u n ity o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to ju d g e th e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s e s .” ). W e thu s fin d that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t com m itclea r error b ycre d it ing B ing am an ’s ear l i eracc ountof Sm i t h’ s r ol e i n t he cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e and f i ndi ng thatal l fourchec ks
w e re p a rt o f

S m ith ’s r e lev a n t co n d u c t. B. I n J une 2005— w hi l e Sm i t h and B i ngaman w er e enga ged i n t he conve ni ence chec k co n sp ir ac y— theyalso ac q u ir ed a c red itca rd sto len f rom the m ail b o x o f th eir ne igh b o r, B r i t t anyH opki ns . T heyus ed thi s car d t o obt ai n a dupl i cat e copyof the cr edi tcar d, w hi ch12

th e yu se d to m a k e se v e ra l p u rc h a se s. P S R a t 2 . S m ith w a s c h a rg e d in th e F ra n k lin C o u n ty C o u rt o f

C o m m o n P le a s w ith id e n tity th e f t, in tera lia , and pl ed nol o cont ender e as p a rt o f a p le a b a rg a in in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 6 . I n pr epar at i on forSm i t h’ s s ent enci ng on t he fe der al cons pi r acyconvi ct i on, the pr obat i on offi ce r epor t ed the H opki ns conducti n t he PSR . T he PSR r ecomm ended, and the D istri ct C o u rtim p o sed , a tw o -l ev el i n cre ase u n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 (b)(1 0 )(C )(I ), beca us e Sm i t h’ s cr i m i nal conductw i t h r egar d t o H opki ns i nvol ved w hatthe gui del i nes re f e r to a s “ th e u n a u th o riz e d tra n sf e r o r u se o f

a n ym e a n s o f

id e n tific a tio n u n law f

u llyto pr oduce orobt ai n anyot herm eans of i dent i fi cat i on. ” Sm i t h obj ect ed t o t he i ncr eas e at sent encing, con t end i ng t hat the g ov ernm ent had n ot r ai sed t he is sue of his cri m es agai nst H o p k in s “ e ith e r a t th e d is c o v e ry o r a n yo f th e d is c u s s io n s o r n e g o tia tio n s ” w ith S m ith . A 1 1 0 . S m ith ’s a tto rn e yra ise d th e a ltern a tiv e a rg u m e n t th a t if th e c o n d u c t re latin g to H opki ns w as t o be i ncl uded as r el evantoffe ns e conduc t , then Sm i t h’ s s ent ence s houl d run c o n c u rr e n t to th e s e n te n c e h e w o u ld h a v e to s e rv e o n th e F ra n k lin C o u n ty ch a rg e s . A 11 0– A 11 1. T he g ov ernm ent agr eed thata con curr ent s entence w as approp ri at e beca use “tho se tw o sen tenc es d o em b rac e so m e o f th e sa m e c o n d u ct. ” A 1 1 9 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt found thatt he conduc tper t ai ni ng t o H opki ns w as “appr opr i at e r el evantconductpur s uant t o A ppl i cat i on N ot e 8 of the G ui del i nes , Sect i on 1B 1. 3, ” and i ncr eas ed the off ens e l evelW hen det erm i ni ng w hat s peci fi c offens e char act er i s t i cs appl y at sent enci ng, 7 § 1B 1. 3 al l ow s t he di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i der“al l act s and om i s s i ons . . . t hat w er e partof the s a me c o u r s e o f

c o n d u c to rc o mm o n s c h e me o rp l a n a s t h e o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . ” U. S . S . G. § 1B 1. 3( a) ( 2) . A ppl i cat i on not e 8 el abor at es on the pr oces s byw hi ch a di s t r i ctj udge eval uat es w hetheran ac ti s “r el evantconduct ” w i t h t he fol l ow i ng exampl e: T he defe ndant engage d i n t w o coca i ne s al es cons t i tut i ng par tof the s ame cour s e of conductorcomm on s cheme orpl an. Subse quent l y , he i s arr es t ed bys t at e author i t i es f o r th e f irst sa le a n d b yf

e d e ra l au th o rities f

o r th e se c o n d sa le. H e is c o n v icte d in sta te c o u rt f

o r th e f irst sa le a n d se n ten c e d to im p riso n m e n t; h e is th e n c o n v icte d in fede r al cour tfort he s econd s al e. I n t hi s cas e, the coc ai ne s al es ar e nots epar at ed by a n in ter v e n in g se n te n c e . T h e re f o re , u n d e r su b se c tio n (a )(2 ), th e c o c a in e sa le as s oci at ed w i t h t he st at e convi ct i on i s cons i der ed as r el evantconductt o the i ns t ant fede r al offe ns e. T he s t at e pr i s on s ent ence forthatsal e i s notcount ed as a pr i or s ent ence . See a l so i d. cm t. n . 9 (de fin ing co m m o n sch em e o r plan an d sam e c o u rse o f c o n d u ct). 13 byt w o p oint s. 7 W h e n a d istric t co u rt is se n ten c in g a d e f e n d a n t, th e c o u rt’s f

irst ta sk is to det erm i ne the appl i cabl e off ens e gui del i ne s ect i on t o be appl i ed, bas ed on the cr i m e of c o n v ic tio n . C

f. W at t ers on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 21 9 F . 3d 23 2, 23 6 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). In the case of S m i t h, t hat w as U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(a) (2) . T he co urtthen determ i nes t he b ase offen se l evel , atw hi ch poi ntr el evantconductm aybe t aken i nt o acc ounti f i tr el at es t o “( 1) cal cul at i ng t he bas e off ens e l evel , ( 2) cons i der i ng the s peci fi c off ens e cha r act er i s t i cs s et for t h i n t he part i cul argui del i ne, ( 3) cons i der i ng anycr os s - r efe r ence s cont ai ned i n t he par t i cul argui del i ne, and ( 4) m aki ng anyadj us t m ent s author i zed byC hapt erT hr ee. ” I d. at 239 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C handl er , 125 F. 3d 892, 897–98 ( 5th C i r . 1997) ) . Such re le v a n t c o n d u c t m u s t b e p ro v e d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . W a tts , 5 1 9 U .S . 1 4 8 , 1 5 7 (1 9 9 7 ). In th e p re se n t ca se , the P S R p re se n ted a m p le14

e v id e n c e th a t th e o f

f e n se s in v o lv in g B rittan yH o p k in s w e re c o n d u c ted c o n c u rre n tlyw ith t he conve ni ence chec k s cheme. I tw as thus r el evantconductunderU . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3, A p p li ca ti o n n o tes 8

– 9 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e f ind n o erro r i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s cons i der at i on of Sm i t h’ s “unauthor i zed tr ans ferorus e of a nym eans of i dent i fi cat i on un l aw full yt o p roduce or obtai n an yotherm eans of i den t i fi cat i on ” i n the offen ses agai nst H opki ns as a r el evants peci fi c off ens e cha r act er i s t i c t o i ncr eas e hi s offe ns e l evel under U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 (b )( 1 0 )( C )( I) . C. Sm i t h nextar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n notgr ant i ng hi m a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforbei ng a mi norpart i ci panti n t he cr i m i nal act i vi t yunder U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatSm i t h w as notent i t l ed t o a mi nor - par t i ci pantdow nw ar d adj us t m entw as bas ed on i t s as s es s m entof the cr edi bi l i t yof B i ngaman’ s t es t i m ony , i tw as a fa ctual det erm i nat i on thatw e r evi ew for c le a r e rr o r. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . Isa za -Za

p a ta , 148 F. 3d 236, 237 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . “The d istri ct co u rt s are all o w ed b roa d d iscreti o n in ap p ly ing this section , an d their ruli n g s are l eftl ar gel yundi s turbed byt he court s of appe al . ” I d. at238. A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , see supra Par tI I . A , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on that B i ngaman’ s ear l i eracc ountof the eve nt s t o t he pos t al i ns pect orw as m or e cr edi bl e than heracc ountats ent enci ng w as notcl earerr or . Si nce Smi t h’ s cl ai m thathe w as a “mi nor p a rticip a n t” is o n lysu p p o rta b le if B in g a m a n ’s te stim o n ya t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g isT he § 3553( a) fac t or s ar e: 8 ( 1) the n at ur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) t he nee d fort he s ent ence i m pos ed— ( A) t o r e f

l e c t t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e o f f e n s e , t o p r o mo t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe off ens e; (B ) to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; 15 bel i eved, ourear l i erfi ndi ng di s pos es of thi s cl ai m as w el l . A ccor di ngl y , w e do notfi nd c lea r e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d e n yth e m in o r-ro le d o w n w a rd a d ju stm e n t. D. Sm i t h fur t hercont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed ats ent enci ng bynot w ith d ra w in g S m ith ’s g u iltyp lea . H o w e v e r, n o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t S m ith
m oved t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea, and the courtdi d noterri n fai l i ng t o w i t hdr aw the gui l t ypl ea su a sp o n te . E. Sm i t h’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi m pos i ng an u n re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) and U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In B ooker , the Supr eme C our tdi r ect ed thatappel l at e court s s houl d r evi ew s ent ence s for

“ re a so n a b len e ss .” 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 6 1

– 6 2 . T o d e ter m in e if a d istric t co u rt a c ted re a so n a b lyin im p o sing a se n tenc e, a rev iew ing co u rtm u st co n side r w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt appr opr i at el yexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on bygi vi ng m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he r el evant fact ors unde r 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . “T here are no m agic w ords that a di stri ctj ud ge m ust 8( C ) t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur t hercr i m es of the def endant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m ed ical care , o r oth er c o rrecti o n al trea tm en t i n the m o st eff ec ti v e m an n er; ( 3) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; (4) the k ind s o f se n tenc e a n d the s en tenc ing ran g e e stab li sh ed fo r— (A ) th e a p p li ca b le ca tego ry o f of fe n se co m m itted by the a p p li ca b le ca tego ry o f d e f e n d a n t a s s e t f

o rt h in th e g u id e lin e s . . .; (5 ) a n yp e rtin e n t p o licysta tem e n t . . . issu e d b y th e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n . . . tha t, e x c e p t as p ro v id e d in se c tio n 3 7 4 2 (g ), is in e f f e c t o n th e d a te th e d e f e n d a n t is se n ten c e d [ ;] (6) the n eed to avo i d u nw arr anted sent ence d i spari t i es am on g d efen dan t s w ith s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l t yof s i m i l arconduct ; and ( 7) t he nee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on t o anyvi ct i m s of the off ens e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ); s ee al s o C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 .

16 i nvoke w hen s ent enci ng, butt he r ecor d s houl d demonstr at e thatthe courtcons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and anys ent enci ng gr ounds pr oper l yr ai s ed bythe part i es w hi ch have
r ecogni zed l egal m er i tand fa ctual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d. ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332. H av ing rev iew ed the re co rd in S m ith ’s ca se, w e f ind n o m eritin S m ith ’s arg u m en t th at th e D istri ct C o u rtu n rea so n ab lyca lculated h is sen tenc e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l ycons i der ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the nee d forthe se n ten c e to p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t, ref lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , p ro m o te r es pectfort he l aw , pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om the def endant , and af

for d adequa t e det err ence t o ot her s . 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T he courtnot ed that“a s ent ence atthe hi gh end of the cus t odyr ange i s nece s s aryt o adequa t el ym eets ent enci ng goal s of pr ovi di ng a pena l t yand det err ence , ” es peci al l ys i nce “ pr i ort erm s of i m pr i s onm entand s upervi s i on have be en uns ucce s s ful i n det err i ng hi m . ” A 128, A 129. R efe r r i ng t o Sm i t h’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , t he

### 17

D i s t r i ctC our tfur t hernot ed thatSm i t h “pr ey s on s oci etybycomm i t t i ng i dent i t ytheft ” and t hat“[s ] oci etym us tbe pr ot ect ed byr emovi ng hi m fr om the publ i c fora per i od of t i m e. ” A 129. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defe nd ant purs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . §3 55 3(a) (1) , t aking i nto accou nt that he w as a “r eci di vi s t ” w ho has been “ i nvol ved w i t h t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em si nce a ge 16. ” A 129. Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcour teval uat ed and rul ed upon al l i s s ues and obj ect i ons r ai s ed b y S m i t h a n d h i s a t t o r n e y. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e and w e s ee no pr obl em w i t h t he
m a n n e r i n w h ic h it c o n d u c te d th e s e n te n c in g p ro c e s s .

III . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.