FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 49 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 07 29 -J EM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us DANIEL STEPHEN , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 12 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dan ie l St ep he n app eal s h is co nv ic ti onan d 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e fo rco ns pi racy to c omm itm ai l fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 . Step he n, as th e

so le co rp or at e o ffi cer o f Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on , Inc ., so ldtra ct s o f la ndinno rth ern Fl or id a. He adve rti se d t he lan d p rimaril y to m em be rs of t he Hait ia n c omm un it y in So ut h F lo rid a an d fa ls el y in fo rm edth e v ic ti m s tha t Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on own edth e la nd . Step he n h ire d t he law fi rm of Es ti m e-Th om

ps on , P.A. to co nduc t re al est at e cl os in gs . Patr ic iaDe Po ns , who m an ag edEst im e-Th om ps on ’s ti tl e o pe rat io n, co nduc te d t he frau du le ntclo si ng s p ur po rti ng to tra ns fer t it le of l an d t ract s fr om Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on to th e b uyers. Sh e al so pro vi de d b uyers wi th fab ric at ed , un reco rd edwarran ty deed s. 1 St ep he n was ch arg edwith o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to c omm itm ai l fr au d i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 41 an d 1 34 9, an d e ig ht eenco un ts of s ub st an ti ve m ai l frau d i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 34 1 a nd2. He en te redin to a writ te n p le a ag reem en t wi th th e g ov ern m en t, i n wh ic h h e ag reedto pl eadgu il ty to co un t o ne of th e in di ctm en t an d t he go ve rn m en t ag reedto see k d is m is sa l o f th e rem ai ni ng ei gh te enco un ts . In the pl ea ag reem en t St ep he n a ckno wled ge d t ha t the di st ric t co urt wo ul d c on si de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d t ha t the co urt h ad“ th e au th or it y to im po se an y sen te nc e wit hi n a ndup to th e st atut ory m ax im um ” o f 20 De Pons and Clotilde J ean, who manag ed the da ily operations of First L oan Solution, 1 wer e Stephen’ s co-de fenda nts, but they

arenot parties in this appea l. De Pons was sente nced at the same time a s Stephen. 2y ears . The g ov ern m en t ag reedto see k areduc ti oninSte ph en ’s off en se lev el ba se d o n h is acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , andth e p art ie s ag reedto joi nt ly reco m m en d t hr ee en ha nc em en ts to Ste ph en ’s bas e o ffen se lev el : a 2 0- le ve l in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(K) fo r a l os s o f m or e th an$7 ,00 0,0 00 bu t le ss th an$2 0,0 00 ,00 0; a 6- le ve l i nc reas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(C) for25 0 orm or e v ic ti m s; an d a4-l ev el in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ) fo r St ep he n’s ro le as a n o rg an iz er o r le ad er o f th e cri m in al act iv it y . Tho se were the on ly thre e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es en ha nc em en ts th atth e p le a ag reem en t m en ti on ed . Inad di ti on to th os e th ree e nh an cem en ts , th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep ort re co m

m en de d a2-l ev el in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3 b ecau se Ste ph en

“ ab us eda po si ti on of p ub li c o r pr iv at e trus t . . . ina m an ne r th atsi gn ifi can tl y faci li ta te d t he co m

m is si on or c on ceal m en t o f th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3. The PSI al so reco m

m en de d a2-l ev el in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 )(C) be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edth e u se of s op hi st ic at edm ean s. St ep he n’s b as e of fen se lev el was 7 , bu t wi th all of t he en ha nc em en ts th e PSI s ethi s ad jus te d b as e of fen se lev el at 4 1. With a 3- le ve l d own wardad jus tm en t fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y , hi s t ot al off en se lev el was 3 8. Th e PSI a ss ig ne d S te ph enzero cri m in al hi st ory

po in ts an d acri m in al hi st ory of I , andhi s re co m

m en de d gu id el in es ran ge was 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s. Be cau se a st atut ory m ax im um of 2 0 3y ears ap pl ie d, h owe ve r, th e PSI s etSte ph en ’s gu id el in es ran ge at 2 35 to 24 0

m on th s. See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (c)( 1) . St ep he n fi le d o bjec ti on s t o t he PSI b as edon , am on g o th er thi ng s, the reco m m en de d e nh an cem en ts forab us e o f a p os it io n o f trus t an d fo r so ph is ti cat ed m ean s. At t he sen te nc e h eari ng th e d is tri ctco urt que st io ne d b ot h s id es ab ou t the fact s re la te d t o t ho se en ha nc em en ts . The co urt the reaf te r im po se d asen te nc e o f 24 0 m on th s fo ll owe d b y

th ree years o f supe rv is edrel eas e. It l at er o rd ered $6 ,80 4,7 36 .08 in res ti tu ti on , bas edon th e cl ai m s fi le d b y vi ct im s. St ep he n c on te nd s t ha t (1 ) th e g ov ern m en t b reac he d the pl ea ag reem en t b y arg ui ng in fav orof an abu se of t ru sten ha nc em en t an d s eek in g asen te nc e ab ov e th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e th atwas i nd ic at edby the pl ea ag reem en t; an d (2 ) ev enif t he go ve rn m en t d idno t b reac h the pl ea ag reem en t, i t co nt ai ns anun en fo rceabl e se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er. He al so co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby (1) ap pl y in g t he 2-l ev el ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3; (2) ap pl y in g t he 2-l ev el so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 )(C) ; an d (3 ) ap pl y in g a20 -le ve l en ha nc em en t b as edonit s cal cu la ti on th e am ou ntof t he lo ss un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ). Ste ph enass ert s th athe sh ou ldbe pe rm it te d t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea, o r he sh ou ldbe rese nt en cedby a dif

fere ntdi st ric t co urt ju dg e. 4I.

The on ly argu m en t St ep he n m ak es th at , if s uc ces sf ul , wou ldall ow h im

to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a is hi s co nt en ti on th atth e g ov ern m en t b reac he d the pl ea ag reem en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Rewis , 96 9 F .2d98 5, 9 88 –8 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (“ The re ar e two rem ed ie s av ai labl e whe n apl ea ag reem en t i s b reac he d: (1) rem an d th e cas e fo r res en te nc in g a cco rd in g t o t he term s o f th e ag reem en t b efo re a d iff eren t jud ge , or (2 ) pe rm itth e wit hdrawal of t he gu il ty ple a.”). Bec au se Ste ph endi d n ot arg ue to th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the go ve rn m en t al le ge dl y bre ach edth e p le a ag reem en t, we re vi ew on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Rom an o, 3 14 F.3d 12 79 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ Befo re an erro r is subjec t t o c orrect io n u nd er the pl ai n e rro r ru le , itm

us t b e p la in un de r co nt ro ll in g p rece de ntor i n v ie w of the un equi vo cal ly clearword s o f a s ta tu te or rul e; itm us t h av e adve rs el y

affe ct edth e ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs ; an d i t m us t b e su ch th atth e fai lu re t o c orrectitwou ld se rio us ly affectth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lett , 48 3 F .3d78 2, 7 90 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). The go ve rn m en t i s b ou ndto a m at eri al pro m is e th atin du ces a de fen dantto pl eadgu il ty. San to be ll o v . New York , 40 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 2, 9 2 S .Ct. 4 95 , 49 9 (1 97 1) . “ Whe th er the go ve rn m en t v io la te d the ag reem en t i s ju dg edacco rd in g t o th e d efen da nt ’s reas on ab le un de rs ta nd in g a t the ti m e h e en te redth e p le a.” Rewi s, 596 9 F .2dat 9 88 . In the pre se ntcas e, al th ou gh so m e o f th e g ov ern m en t’s

st at em en ts at t he sen te nc e h eari ng co ul d b e co ns tru edas a rg um en ts infav orof im po si ng th e ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t, the go ve rn m en t re pe at ed ly em ph as iz ed th atitin te nd edto ho no r th e p le a ag reem en t, an d i t n ev er s pe ci fic al ly ask edth e di st ric t co urt t o i m

po se th e en ha nc em en t. The di stric t co urt as ke d c ou ns el forbo th pa rti es whet he r th ere was a factua l di sp ut e ab ou t St ep he n’s ab us e o f a p os it io n o f trus t wi th th e v ic ti m s o f th e frau du le ntsch em e. The c ou rt t ol d S te ph en ’s cou ns el th atitdi d n ot“ care ab ou t” th e p le a ag reem en t an d a sk edforanex pl an at io n o f “ why, factua ll y ,” th e ab us e o f tru sten ha nc em en t was “ no t ap pl ic ab le .” Ste ph en ’s arg um en ts onth atsubjec t d id no t p ers ua de th e co urt, wh ic h c on cl ud edth atth e en ha nc em en t was “ ap pr op ria te .” The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t i nt en de d t o i m po se th e en ha nc em en t d es pi te th e go ve rn m en t’s d eci si on to “ co nt in ue with [i ts ] po si ti on as s ta te d i n t he pl ea ag reem en t.” Th us , Ste ph en ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were n otaffe ct edbe cau se th e di st ric t co urt was go in g t o i m po se th e en ha nc em en t ev enth ou gh th e g ov ern m en t di d n otag ree t o i t. The go ve rn m en t co m

pl ie d wi th it s p ro m is e in th e p le a ag reem en t t o reco m m en d asen te nc e “ withi n t he advi so ry sen te nc in g g ui de li ne ran ge pro du ced by app li cat io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es .” At the sen te nc e h eari ng , th e 6go ve rn m en t s ta te d t ha t i n l ig htof t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si onto setth e g ui de li ne s

ran ge at 2 35 to 24 0 m on th s, i t re co m m en de d asen te nc e o f 23 5 m on th s, atth e lo w en d o f th atran ge . Cou ns el forSte ph enackno wled ge d t ha t the re was no t “ m uc h wig gl e ro om

be twee n 2 35 an d 2 40 .” Ste ph en ’s cou ns el als o re co gn iz edth atth e pa rti es ha d e nt eredth e p le a ag reem en t b as edon th e u nd ers ta nd in g t ha t the gu id el in es ran ge wou ldbe be twee n 1 51 an d 1 88 m on th s, wh ic h wo ul d b e

“ ho pe fu ll y

sat is fact ory

to th e Co urt,” b utbe cau se th e co urt was no t s at is fie d wi th th atgu id el in es ran ge , cou ns el ask edfora “ va ria nc e d own to 15 1 m on th s.” J us t be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d eci de d t o i m po se a hi gh er g ui de li ne s ra ng e d oe s n ot m ean th atth e g ov ern m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t. Inth e p le a ag reem en t it se lf S te ph enackno wled ge d t ha t “ th e co urt h a[d ] th e au th or it y to im po se any se nt en ce wi th in an d up t o t he st atut ory m ax im um ” o f twe nt y

y ears . Step he n h as no t s ho wn t ha t the go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t, an d h e is no t en ti tl ed to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a o r to be res en te nc edby a dif fere ntjud ge . II. Hav in g d et erm in edth atth e p le a ag reem en t was no t b reac he d, we n ow turn to th e is su e o f whe th er St ep he n wai ve d h is rig htto ch al le ng e h is sen te nc e. The pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ne d asen te nc e ap pe al waiv er, wh ic h i s en fo rceabl e if St ep he n a gr eedto itkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bus he rt , 99 7 7F.2 d 1 34 3, 1 35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . To es tabl is h t ha t St ep he n wai ve d h is ap pe al

rig ht s kno win gl y

an d v ol un ta ril y , “ [t]he go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w th ateit he r (1 ) th e di st ric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly que st io ne d [S te ph en ] co nc ern in g t he sen te nc e ap pe al waiv er dur in g t he Ru le 11 co ll oquy, or (2 ) itis m an ife st ly clearfro m th e rec or d th at[St ep he n] othe rwis e u nd ers to odth e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e wai ve r.” Id . at 13 51 . As the go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , Ste ph en ’s sen te nc e ap pe al waiv er i s n ot en fo rceabl e. The d is tri ctco urt fa il edto qu es ti on hi m ab ou t i t dur in g the pl ea co ll oquy, anditis no t m an ife st ly clearfro m th e rec or d t ha t h e o th erwi se un de rs to odit s fu ll si gn ifi can ce. Bec au se th e wai ve r is un en fo rceabl e, we wil l co ns id er the m eri ts of S te ph en ’s cha ll en ge to hi s s en te nc e. III. St ep he n fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby app lying a § 3 B1 .3 en ha nc em en t fo r ab us e o f a p os it io n o f trus t. Whenco ns id eri ng a di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , we rev ie w it s fi nd in gs of f actfor cle ar erro r an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s t o t ho se fact s d e no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hum be r, 25 5 F .3d13 08 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s pr ov id e fo r a 2 -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f “ th e d efen da ntab us eda po si ti onof p ub li c o r pr iv at e trus t . . . ina m an ne r th atsi gn ifi can tl y faci li ta te d t he co m

m is si on or 8co nc eal m en t o f th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3. The § 3 B1 .3 co m m en ta ry de fin es

“ [p ]ubl ic or p riv at e trus t’” as “ a p os it io n o f publ ic or p riv at e trus t ch arac te riz edby pr of es si on al or m an ag eri al di sc ret io n (i .e., subs ta nt ia l d is cret io nary jud gm en t tha t is ord in ari ly giv enco ns id erab le de fere nc e).” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3 cmt. n .1. “ The en ha nc em en t . . . requi res th atth e o ffen de r oc cupy a po si ti on of t ru stinrel at io n t o th e v ic ti m , no t an othe r pa rty.” Unit edSta te s v . Lou is , 55 9 F .3d12 20 , 12 26 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Bec au se ev ery in st an ce o f frau d i nv ol ve s anele m en t o f m is pl acedtru st , “ a se nt en ci ng co urt m

us t b e car efu l n otto be ov erl y bro adinim

po si ng th e en ha nc em en t fo r ab us e o f a p os it io n o f trus t.” Un it edSta te s v . Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3d 12 56 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The g ov ern m en t m us t sh ow “ th atth e v ic ti m

pl aceda sp eci al tru stinth e d efen da ntbe y on d o rd in ary rel ia nc e o n t he de fen da nt ’s in te gr it y an d h on es ty tha t u nd erl ie s ev ery frau d sc en ari o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 27 F.3d12 35 , 12 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Mu ll en s, 6 5 F .3d15 60 , 15 67 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (h ol di ng th atdi stric t co urt erredby app lying ab us e o f trus t en hanc em en t b as edon th e de fen da nt ’s exp lo it at io n o f fri en ds hi ps he cu lt iv at edwith i nv es to rs by virtue of h is m em be rs hi p i n aco un try club) . The ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t i n t he pre se ntcas e was ba se d o n o nl y two 9fin di ng s o f fac t b y th e d is tri ctco urt: (1) Ste ph enwas t he so le co rp or at e o ffi cer o f Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on ; an d (2 ) St ep he n, wh o i s o f Hai ti ande sc en t, m ark et edto th e Hait ia n c omm

un it y in So ut h F lo rid a. Bo th fact s ar e true , bu t n ei th er fa ctsupp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t. St ep he n’s ro le as s ol e co rp or at e o ffi cer a t Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on m ean t tha t h e ha d afiduc ia ry

rel at io ns hi p wi th th e co m pa ny, but§ 3 B1 .3 re qu ire s a s ho win g t ha t th e d efen da nthe lda po si ti on of t ru stinrel at io n t o t he vi ct im s. See Lou is , 55 9 F.3 d a t 1 22 6. “ [T]he ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s o nl y wher e th e de

fe nd an t ha s a bu se d dis cr et io na ryau th or it y en tr us te d t o the de

fe nd an t b y th e vi ct im ; arm ’s-le ng th bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps are n otav ai labl e fo r th e ap pl ic at io n o f th is en ha nc em en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Garri so n, 1 33 F.3d83 1, 8 39 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . As a s el le r of lan d S te ph ensi m

pl y ha d abu y er-s el le r rel at io ns hi p wi th th e v ic ti m s, n ota fi du ci ary rel at io ns hi p. As fo r th e n at io na l o rig in Ste ph ensh aredwith t he vi ct im s o f hi s fr au du le nt sc he m e, atth e se nt en ce h eari ng on e v ic ti m to ldth e d is tri ctco urt tha t St ep he n a nd hi s co -d efen dant“ di d s om ethi ng ve ry ba d t o t he Hait ia n p op ul at io n.” The wi tn es s ex pl ai ne d: “ He’s Hait ia n, the y were tru st edwith the m on ey fro m th e Hai ti an pe op le .” Init s b rie f to th is Co urt, h owe ve r, th e g ov ern m en t d oe s n otarg ue th at th e v ic ti m s p la cedsp eci al tru stinSte ph enbe cau se of t he ir c omm on Hait ian 10he rit ag e, so th atarg um en t h as be enab an do ne d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F.3 d 9 80 , 98 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (arg um en ts no t m ad e in a pa rty’ s b rie f are ab an do ne d) . In an y

ev en t, ev enif t he vi ct im s wer e in cl in edto do bu si ne ss with St ep he n b ecau se he was o f Hai ti ande sc en t, tha t wo ul d b e m or e ak in to a so ci al rel at io ns hi p t ha n aclo se pe rs on al or f iduc ia ry rel at io ns hi p. Se e Mu ll en s, 6 5 F .3d at15 67 . Altho ug h S te ph enm ay

ha ve ga in edhi s v ic ti m s’ tru stby ly in g t o t he m ab ou t sa fel y pl aci ng th ei r m on ey

in anesc ro w acco un t, h is fal se pro m is e d oe s n ot es tabl is h t ha t the vi ct im s p la cedan y sp eci al tru stinhi m

be y on d t he ord in ary rel ia nc e th atun de rli es ev ery frau d s cen ari o. Se e Will iam s, 5 27 F.3dat 1 25 0– 51 . The di st ric t co urt erredby app lying th e § 3B 1.3 en ha nc em en t. IV. St ep he n a ls o c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby app lying a so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t. The sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s p ro vi de fora two le ve l i nc reas e in th e d efen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el if “ th e o ffen se . . . in vo lv ed so ph is ti cat edm ean s.” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(9 )(C) . The co m m en ta ry de sc rib es

“ so ph is ti cat edm ean s” as “ es pe ci al ly com pl ex or e sp eci al ly int ric at e o ffen se co nduc t p ert ai ni ng to th e ex ecu ti onor c on ceal m en t o f anoff en se ,” in cl ud in g

“ [c]on du ctsu ch as h id in g a ss et s o r tr an sa ct io ns , or b ot h, thr ou gh th e u se of 11fic ti ti ou s en ti ti es , cor po rat e sh el ls , or o ffs ho re fi na nc ia l ac co un ts .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, cmt. n .8(B ). Every on e o f th e d efen da nt ’s in di vi du al act io ns do es no t ha ve to be so ph is ti cat ed ; i ns te ad , itis en ou gh if “ th e to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed .” Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3dat 1 26 7. The un di sp ut edfact s s etforthinth e PSI e st ab li sh th atSte ph en ’s off en se was m or e co m

pl ex th ana si m

pl e rea l es ta te tra ns act io n. St ep he n a rran ge d b us tri ps forpro sp ect iv e b uyers t o v ie w vac an t l an d t ha t Fi rs t Lo anSo lu ti on s pu rp orte dl y

own ed , hi redth e Est im e-Th om ps on law fi rm

to serve as c lo si ng an d es cro w age nt , andsen t l et te rs to vi ct im s o ffer in g fa ls e ex pl an at io ns forclo si ng de la y s an d fa ls el y

reas su rin g t he vi ct im s tha t the ir d ep os it s wer e b ei ng he ldinan es cro w acco un t. St ep he n’s co -d efen da ntDe Po ns co nduc te d fr au du le ntclo si ng s an d p ro vi de d v ic ti m s wi th fab ric at ed , un reco rd edwarran ty deed s. All of t he se act io ns were i ns tru m en ta l i n t he ex ecu ti on or c on ti nu edco nc eal m en t o f th e of fen se . They were i nt en de d t o re as su re the bu y ers th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were le gi ti m at e an d t ha t the ir d ep os it s wer e sa fe. The di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fin di ng th atth e o ffen se in vo lv edth e u se of s op hi st ic at edm ean s. V. St ep he n c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby inc reas in g h is off en se lev el 20 lev el s b as edon a lo ss am ou ntof m or e th an$7 ,00 0,0 00 bu t l es s t han 12$2 0,0 00 ,00 0. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(K). He arg ue s t ha t atth e res ti tu ti on

he ari ng , whi ch was c on du ct edaft er the sen te nc e h eari ng , th e actua l am ou ntof l os s cl ai m edby the vi ct im s was les s tha n $ 7,0 00 ,00 0. Ba se d o n t ha t am ou ntof res ti tu ti on , Ste ph enass ert s t ha t h is off en se lev el sh ou ldbe lo wer u nd er § 2B 1.1 . See U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(J ) (p ro vi di ng for an18 -le ve l i nc reas e fo r a l os s am ou ntov er $ 2,5 00 ,00 0 b utno t m or e th an$7 ,00 0,0 00 ). St ep he n fa il edto ob

ject t o t he lo ss am ou ntinth e PSI, s o h e adm it te d fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es th athi s o ffen se in vo lv eda lo ss am ou ntof $ 10 ,60 0,0 00 . See Uni te d S ta te s v . W ad e, 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [A] fail ur e to ob ject t o a ll eg at io ns of f

actin a PSI ad m it s t ho se fact s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es .”). Noton ly tha t, b utSte ph enag reedinth e p le a ag reem en t tha t a 2 0- le ve l i nc reas e fo r a lo ss am ou ntof m or e th an$7 ,00 0,0 00 bu t l es s t han $ 20 ,00 0,0 00 was app ro pr ia te . The di st ric t co urt d idno t err by sen te nc in g h im ba se d o n alo ss am ou ntth athe ha d adm it te d a ndha d a gr eedwas app li cab le . VI. St ep he n fa il edto sh ow t ha t the go ve rn m en t b reac he d t he pl ea ag reem en t. Thu s, we af

firm hi s co nv ic ti on . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt erredby im po si ng an ab us e o f trus t en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3, h owe ve r, we va cat e St ep he n’s

13se nt en ce an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. 2

AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Stephen also conte nds that the district court fa iled to satisfy the re quirements of 18 2 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) . Be cause we a re r emandingfor r esente ncing , that issue is moot.

14