The Hon orabl e W i l l i am T. Lawre nc e, Dis t ri c tJudge f or the  So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana, i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2925 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . L ESLIE A ND E R S ON, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:04- cr-30111-WD S -3

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 3, 2009

Befo re R IPPLEa nd S YKES, C i rcui t Judges , a nd L AWR EN CE, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. A s a r esul t o fhi s invol vem ent with a fra ud ule nt te l em ar ket i ng sc hem e, Lesl i e An derso n w as charg ed w i th w i re fra ud , m ai l fra ud and conspi ring to com m i t a n offense aga i nst t h e U n i ted S tat es. A ftera fi ve-2 N o. 08

- 2925 day tr i al, M r. A nd er son m ove d fo r a j ud gm ent o facqui tta l

. The d istri ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n, a nd the j ury convi cted M r. A nd er son on e ach of t he twentyf our counts charged . A t h is sente nci ng hea ring, M r. A nde r so n r ai se d a numbe ro fo bj ec ti o ns t o the s en tencing enhancem ents re com m ended by the Gove rnm ent, butthe di st r i ctc o ur t, wi tht wo e xc ept i o ns , a ppl i ed th e recom m en d ed enh an cem en ts. A s a res u lt, the cou rt deter m i ned M r. A nd er son’ s a dj us te d offense l eve lto be 42 an d his crim inal history categor y t o be I

. Th e cou rt departed fro m the re com m ended sentencing r ange, i m posi ng a bel ow - gui del i nes s entence o f28 0 m onths’ i mp r i s o n me n t
. Mr
. An d e r s o n n o w a p p e a l s . H e c l a i ms that the e vi dence pres ented attria l w as i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s ver dict; he al so ra i ses a num b er o f c h alle n ge s t o h is s en te n c e. Fo r th e re as on s s etfort h in thi s o pini on, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I B AC KGR OUND A. On M ay 17, 20 05, M r. A nd er son w as c h ar ge d w i th seve ra lo ffenses ar i si ng o ut o fhi s invol vem ent with 14 92 82 8 Ont ar i o , I nc . , a Can adi an te l emar k et i ngc o m pan y doi ng business as First C api talConsum er s Gro up ( “Fi rs t Cap i tal ”)
. S peci fi cal l y, M r. A nd er son w as ch ar ged with one c o un to fc o ns pi r a c y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 7 1, fi ve counts ofm ai lfra ud , i n violat i on o f18 U
. S. C. § 1 341, and ei ghtee n coun ts o f w i re fra ud , i n vi ol ati on o f18N o. 08

- 2925 3 U. S
. C. § 1 34 3. At Mr. Ander so n’ s j ur y t r i al, the Go ve r nm ent pr ese nted the f ol l owing evi dence.

1. Th e Cr eat i on ofFi r stCapit al M r. A nd er son, a Canad i an ci ti zen, bec am e a cquai nted w i th D avid Dal gl i sh thr ough M r. A nd er son’ s Tor onto
base d hom e i m prove m ent b usi ness. Dal gl i sh hel ped M r. And e r s o n s e c ur e a l uc r a t i v e c o nt r a c twi th the c i ty ofTor onto , and M r. A nd er son, i n re turn, lo an ed Dal gl i sh a l ar ge sum o fm oneyso thatDal gl i sh co uld o pen up a tel em ar ket i ng b u si ness w i th hi s fri end, Ll oyd Prudenza. That busi ness ult i m ate l y becam e known as Fir stC ap ita l. By w ay ofb ackgro und , Dal gl i sh had w or ked with Prudenza i n the past. S peci fi cal ly, Prudenza r an Con su m erCr edi t S er vi ce s ( “CCS ”) , a t el emar k et i ng b u sin es s t h at so ld a “c re d it re p air p ro gr am ” t o in d ivid u als wi th po o rc r e di th i s t o r i e s . R
. 1 9 6 a t8 2

- 8 3
. Aft e ra CC S t elem arketer sold the p rod uc t to a cus tom er, a “verifier” fr o m Ve r te ch, a n a ffi li ate o fCCS, woul d c o nt ac t th e c u st om er , con fi rm th e d et ails of th e p u rc h as e a n d ob ta in th e cu stom er’s auth orization to deb it the cu stom er’s b an k a c c ou n t. Id. at83

- 85; R. 199 at 145. D a l g l i s h h i r e d M a r kL e n n o x , a f o r m e rV e r t e c h e mp loyee, to w ork forFi r st C ap ital. Da lgl ish inform ed M r. Ander so n o fthe hi r e an d e xpl aine d tha t Lenno x was the “t op v eri fi er ” a t Ver tech. R. 199 at 145. H e a l so i nfo rm ed M r. A nd er son that he nee ded addit ion al fund s forFi rs t C ap ita l. Inres p on se , M r. A n d er so n co n tr ibu t e d an ad d i-4 N o. 08

- 2925 ti onal$2 0, 000 to the c om pany , thi s t i m e in the f or m o f an equi ty i nvest m ent. In 2 001, Lennox, Dal gl i sh and M r. A nd er son m et to disc uss F i rs t Capi tal ’ s busi ness m odel

. Lennox expla ined to D al g l i s h an d M r. A n d er so n th at Firs t C ap ita l w ou ld hol d i tse l f out as a “cr edi t re cove ry busin es s” that sol d “ b e ne fi t s p a c k a g e s ” t o c o ns ume r s . T he s e b e ne fi ts p ac ka ge s in c lu d ed co u p on s, b ro c h u re s, a c re d it-r ep air gu ide an d a “stored -value c a r d

. ” Th e stored -value card bore a M asterC ard l ogo, bu t it w as no t a c red it card bec au se it had no ind ep en d en t p urc ha sing p ow er. I nstea d, bef or e m akinga pu rchas e, a userfi rs t was r equ ired to cred it fun d s to th e stored -value card

. Th e use r’s pu r c ha s i ngp o we rwas l i mi t e d t o the a mou nto ffun ds he had cr edi ted to the car d i n advance o fthe pu rchas e. Lenno x e xpl aine d tha t th e st o r ed- va l ue c ar ds we re the m osti m port ant par t of F i rs t Capi tal ’ s be nefi ts packag es b ec au se th ey allow ed Firs t C ap ita l’s s ale sp er so n s t o t ell i ts custo m er s that they woul d rec ei ve a M ast er Card w i th thei r benefi ts packag es. The cust om ers w oul d then assu m e th at they w oul d be r ecei vi ng cr edi t ca rds that p er m itt ed th em to m ak e p u rc h as e s t h at co u ld be p aid f o rl at er, ei th er by a sing l e pay m en t o r by a pay m en t pl an . A ccor ding to Lennox, sto re d-value car ds w er e a r el at i v e l y n e w c o nc e pti n 2 0 0 1
. T he r e f or e, L e nn o x c l a i med , “if yo u sai d to som ebo dy that i t was a bank car d and it w as a M ast erCard, 10 0 per cent w oul d assum e that y ou wer e ta l k i ngabo uta c r edi t ve hi cl e, [ and ] th atthi s th i ng h ad a c re d it lim it t o it. A n d w e kn ew t h at, s o th is w as a . . . huge advantage .” R
. 196 at 93. Lennox al so tes ti fi ed thatN o. 08

- 2925 5 he h a d i n f o r me d Mr
. An d e r s o n th a ta s t o r e d

- va l ue M ast er Card w oul d be incl ud ed i n the benefi ts p ac kages. L en n ox kn ew th at M r. A n d er so n w ou ld b e r e sp on sib le f o ra ppr o vinghi s sa l ary a nd o th erc o m pen sa ti on, a nd he ho ped th at, b y using the M as te r Car d a s a “s el l i ng p oin t,” h e c ou ld p ro c u re a lar ge sign in g b on u s. Id. at92

- 95. A fterthatfi rs t m eetin g, M r. A nd er son w ro te a l ett erto the M i l lH aven PenalInsti tuti on, wh er e Pru d en za w as se rv in g a se n te n c e fo r c on sp ira c y t o c om m it fra u d , in or der t o f aci l i tat e Pr ud enza’ s ear l y r el eas e o n paro l e. Prudenza tes ti fi ed that, as part of hi s appli cati on for paro l e, he was r equi re d to “es tabl i sh a gam e pl an f or [ h i s ] r e l e a s e . ” R
. 1 9 8 a t2 9
. Mr
. A n d e r s o n “ p r o v i d e d [ h i m] w ith a let tero fem plo ym ent t o fi t that g am e pl an. ” Id. Shortly after Pru d en za’s release, he , Da lgl ish an d M r. A nd er son m et at M r. A n d er son’ s o ffi ce. Prudenza bro ught his fiancee, Lesl ey M cClo ud , to the m eet i ng, but she l eft a fterM r. A nd er son com pla i ned about her prese n c e. Later, M r. A nd er son expla i ned to Prudenza th at“ he di dn’ t wantwomen ar o und w he n we’ r e ta l k i ng ab ou t t h in gs th at
. . . are illega l.

. . . B e c a u se th ey w ou ld turn a ro und and w oul d rato n the si tuati on. ” Id. at32

- 33. Pru d en za te s t ified th at, at the m eeting, he an d M r. A nd er son disc ussed hi s in c ar cer ati on a nd hi s cr i m i nal offense; he c l ai m ed that M r. A nd er son “kne w . . . wh at [h e h ad ] b e e n i n j ail for ,” an d ex p lain ed th at h is telem arketing ex p erience and crim inal c o n viction w ere an “enti cem ent to bringi ng [ hi m ] abo ar d.” R. 199 at 49, 50
. P ru d enza furtherte sti fi ed that eve ry one at the m eet i ng, i ncl ud i ng M r. A nd er son, understo od thattheydi d not6 N o. 08

- 2925

These “s ale s sc ri pts” w er e w ri tt en s ale s pitc hes that 1 t el em ar ke t er s us ed whe n s ol ic i t i ng o r ver i fyi ng a s al e. The sc ri pts revie w ed at th e m eeting w ere subst anti all y si m il ar to th ose late r u sed b y First C ap ital. P ru d en z a ex p la in ed th a t a “g a ff” is a sc a m , co n o r r ip -o ff. 2 ha ve , a nd c o ul d no t o btain, a utho r i za ti o n t o s el la ny type ofM as terCard. H e no ted that, atthe m eet i ng, M r . Ander so n r ev i ewe d a s ampl e “s al es sc r i pt” a nd 1 d es c rib ed th e s c rip t a s a “g oo d ga ff” an d a “g oo d co n .” 2 R
. 19 8 at3 5, 3 9. In a ddi ti o n, Prude nz a cl ai m ed th athe disc ussed the possibi l i ty ofpolice inter venti on with M r. A nd er son, te lli ng hi m thattheyhad to do thi ngs “i n a cer tain w ay to avo i d b ei ng caught ri gh t a w ay. ” Id. at 37- 38. Later, afterFi rs t Capi talhad begun prel i m i naryo perati ons, Lennox, Dal gl ish , Pr ud enza and M r. A nd er son m ett o di sc us s th e sa l es s cr i pts f o rte l emar k et er s an d ver i fi er s. Lennox tes ti fi ed that he went ove r the s cri pts while M r . Ander so n was pr es en t. He t es ti fi ed th atthe script s w er e i nt en ded to dec eive Fi rst C ap ital’ s custo m er s byco nvi nci ng the m thatthey would r ecei ve a cr edi t ca rd fro m a m aj orbanki n exchange f ora fee.

2 . Fi r s tC a pi t a l ’ s B us i ne s s Ope r a t i o ns Fi rs t Capi talhi re d hun dred s ofte l em ar ket i ng sa l es re prese n tat i ves w ho pl aced te l ephone ca l l s fro m Tor ontoN o. 08

- 2925 7

F irst C ap ital ob tain ed the co nta ct inform atio n for th ese 3 ind iv id u als b y p u rc h a si n g “lea d s lis ts” from list b ro k ers in the U nited States. to United S ta te s r es i den ts wi thpo o rc r edi t hi st o r i es . The 3 re p re se n ta tiv es , u s in g F irs t C ap ita l’s s ale s s c rip ts , w ou ld su ggest th at First Cap ital c o u ld h elp its cus tom ers o bt ain c r edi t ca r ds i n e xc ha nge for a fee . W he n a c u st om er ac c ep te d Firs t C ap ita l’s of fer , a ve r i fier w ou ld m ak e a se c on d ca ll to th e c u st om e r i n ord er to ob ta in the c ustom er ’ s ban k account i nfo rm ati on a nd the custom er ’ s per m i ssi on t o m ake an e l ectr oni c fund s t ra nsfer fro m the custo m er ’ s bank acco unt. The seco nd call w as r e c o r de d. Aft err ec ei vingthe c us to m er ’ s au th o r i zati o n a nd acco unt i nfo rm ati on, the ver i fi erwo u ld cause fund s t o be t r an sfer r ed ou t o fthe c us to m er ’ s ba nka cc o unt thro ug h an autom ate d cl ear i ng house ( “A CH ”)
. Fi rs t Cap i talused thre e AC H s duri ng the co urse o fi ts oper ati on

— A CH Direct, U ni ted Capturedyne Technol ogi es (“U C T ” ) a nd Ch eck R ecov ery System s (“CR S”). M r. Ander so n h el ped Dal g l i sh and P r ude nz a es tabl i sha busi ness re l ati onshi p w i th A CH Dir ect. R. 197 at 21- 22; R. 200 at 64- 65. The re l ati onshi p between Fir st Capit al and A CH Dir ect w as shor t- l i ved, h ow eve r, bec ause A CH Dir ect re cei ved a l ar ge num bero fco m pla i nts fro m diss ati sfi ed Fi rs t C api talcusto m er s. Fr om N ove m ber20 01 thro ugh the sum m ero f 2002, Fi rs t Capi talpro cess ed i ts e l e c t r o ni c t r a ns fe r s thr o ugh UCT. Li k e A CH Di r e c t, UCT r ec ei ve d a numbe ro fc o m pl aint s an d c ea se d pr o vi di ng8 N o. 08

- 2925

A t that s a m e m eetin g , L en no x d istribu ted new sales scrip ts 4 an d lead s lis ts. se rv ice s fo r Fir stC ap ita l. A fte r Fir stC ap ita l’s re lat ion sh ip wi thUCT en ded, F i r stCa pi ta l ’ s m an ag er s an d ass i st an t m an agers

— i ncl ud i ng M r. A nd erson, Dal gl i sh, Prudenza and Lenn ox

— mett o di s c us s the i r pr o b l e ms wi th ACH Di r ec t an d UCT and to a tt empt t o fi nd a ne w pro ce ssor. 4 Fi rs t Capi talthen turned t o CR S f orA CH proc es si ng; that com pany al so re cei ved num er ou s co m pla i nts fro m custo m er s who had rec ei ved no product, wh o had not re c eiv ed th e p ro d u c t t h ey w er e p ro m ise d or w h o c ou ld n o tc o n t a c tF i r s tCa p i t a l

. R
. 1 9 7a t4 0

- 4 2
. T h e s e c o mpl aint s wer e su m m ar i ze d i n c al ll o g s th atwer e l at ers en t to Firs t C ap ita l. A t t h e h eight ofi ts oper ati ons, Fi rs t Capi talhad 250 em plo yee s. Lennox est i m ated t hat F i rs t Capi talpl aced at lea st10 ,00 0 t ele m ar ke tin g c alls ea c h w ee k, r es u ltin g in about 500 succes sful sal es per w eek . Over the co urse o f its o p e ra tio n, First C ap ita l d efr au d ed ap p ro x im at ely 40 , 00 0 vi ct i m s o uto fmor e th an$ 8 m i l l i o n.

3. M r . A nd er son’ s Role i n Fir stCapit al The Gover nm ent pr ese nted evi dence that M r. A nd er son h eld a p os itio n of au th or ity in F irs t C ap ita l. Sp ec ifica lly, it i ntro du ced evi den ce o fa Se ptem ber20 01 m eet i ng at Toro nto Dom i ni on Bank, w here M r. A nd er son intr od uc ed Da lgl ish to G ary Sh asw ell, the ba nk m an ager. T og et h er , th ey se t u p a b u sin es s a c c ou n t fo r Fir stC ap ita l.N o. 08

- 2925 9

Prud enza i nd ic ated that, b y thi s po int, M r. An derson’ s ini ti al 5 loan t o Firs t Capitalhad b een r epaid. R
. 198 at 59. A n earl ie r c he c k, dat ed J anu ar y 1 8, 20 02 , r epr es en t ed a par t i al r epa ym en tofthatl oan . Du ring tha t m eet i ng, Dal gl i sh s u bm i tte d a co py ofFi rs t C a p i t a l ’ s a r t i c l e s o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n ; M r . A n d e r s o n ’ s n a me w as l i ste d on the ar ti cl es as a di re cto r ofthe com pany. Dal g l i sha l so t o l d S ha swe l ltha t M r . An d er so n was the presi dent ofthe com pany. A l though M r. A nd er son l ate r cl ai m ed to ha ve b ee n surpr i se d b y Da l g l i sh ’ s st at ement and denied ag reei ng to se rv e a s F i rs t Capi tal ’ s pre si dent, he di d no t obj ect to orco rr ect any o fDal gl i sh’ s r epres entati ons to Shas w el l

. Duri ng the m eet i ng, M r. A nd er son si gned a num bero fd ocum ents w hi ch nam ed hi m as a pri nci pal o fthe cor pora ti on, pre si de n t ofFi rs t Capi tal and a si gnato ryon Fi rs t Capi tal ’ s a ccount. R. 199 at 152- 55; R. 200 at 34- 41. T h e G ov er n m en t a lso p re se n te d ev id en c e t h at, in ad d ition to being li sted as pres iden t and p rincipa l, M r. A nd erson w as con side red a partn er i n F ir s t C ap ital; M r. A nd erson, Da lgl ish an d Pru d en za agreed that, after M r. A nd erso n ’s in itia l loan to th e c om p an y w as r ep aid , th ey w ou ld d i v i d e F i r s tC a p i t a l ’ s r e ma i n i n gp r o fi t s b e t we e n th e msel ves. Prudenza te stifi ed that, duri ng o ne m eet i ng, he, Dalg l i sh a n d M r. A nd er son each r ecei ved a $400 , 000 shar e o fFi rs t Capi tal ’ s $ 1. 2 m i l l i on pro fi t. 5 Prud e nz a t e s t i fi e d tha tMr
. And e r s o n’ s r o l e i n F i rs t C ap ita l w as p rim ar ily fin an c ial, as op p os ed to m an ag er ial. M r. A nd er son provi ded the sta rtup funds f orFi rs t Capi tal10 N o. 08

- 2925 and hand l ed Fi rs t Capi tal ’ s fi nances. H e s i gned i nvoi ces and author i zed paym ents f orl eads l i sts and benefi ts packag es. R. 19 7 a t 3 5- 39. In additi on, se ver aldocum ents re c or d in g w ire tra n sfe rs m ad e o n F i rs t C ap ita l’s b eh alf bor e M r. A nd er son’ s s i gnatur e, al though M r. A nd er son did notr ecal lsi gni ng the docum ents. R. 199 at 157. M r. A nd er son’ s co ntributi ons to Fi rs t C ap ita lwere not sol el y fi nanci al, how eve r. For exam ple , M r. A nd er son regu larl y m et w ith Pru d en za to discu ss First Cap ital’ s oper ati ons, and he a tte nd ed at l eas t tw o m anage rs ’ m eet
i ngs where Fir st Cap i tal ’ s s al es pit ch, ve ri fi cati on probl em s a nd sa l es i ssues were disc u ss ed

. M r. A nd er son als o a d m itt ed th at h e h ad p er for m e d w or k on Firs t C ap ital ’ s offi ces, l eas ed vehi cl es to Fi rs t Capi taland prov i ded cel lphones t o Dalg l i sh, Prud en za and two others

. R. 199 at 166; R. 200 at 4- 5. Fur ther m or e, i n A ug ust o r Se ptem ber20 02, M r. A nd er son w as l eft in ch ar ge of Fi rs t Capi taland ove rs aw al lo fthe com pany’s o perati o ns whi l e Pr ude nz a an d Da l g l i shwer e va ca ti o ni ng i n I tal y. Duri ng t h at ti m e per i od, M r. A nd er son si g ne d payro l lc he ck s an d a utho r i ze d wi r e tr an sa ct i o ns f orl eads- l i st pu rchas es. The Go ve r nm en t al so i nt r o duce d e vi den ce pe r ta i ni ng to w hetherM r. A n d erson knew ofthe i l l ega lnatur e o f Fi rs t Capi tal ’ s a cti vi ti es. Fo r exam ple , Prudenza t est i fi ed that M r. A nd er son too k a n acti ve i nter esti n Fi rs t Capi ta l ’ s sa l es a nd “ k ne w ov er al lo fwhatwas g o i ngo n” at Fi rs t Cap ita l. R. 198 at 49- 51, 54
. A ccor ding to Prudenza, M r. A nd er son knew that F i rs t Cap ital w as m i sl eadi ng i ts custo m er s: Prudenza t est i fi ed that, afterN o. 08

- 2925 11

R .18 3 at 31 ; see U .S.S .G . § 2 B 1 .1(b )(1)(K ). 6 th e sa l es s cr i pts wer e di sc us se d dur i nghi s fir stmeet i ng wi thM r . Ander so n, M r . Ander so n a sk ed, “ Are Am er i ca ns th ats tu pi d?” R
. 198 a t 37
. Pr ude nz a al so s ta te d tha t he ha d i n f o r me d Mr
. An d e r s o n o f th e c o mpl a i n t s fr o m t he A CH co m panie s a nd thathe s pecifical l y had info rm ed M r. A nd er son th at Fi rs t Capi talhad re cei ved co m pla i nts fro m cu st om er s w h o e ith er h ad n ot r e c e i ve d th eir cr ed it re pai r pac ka ge s or had not r ecei ved w hat they ha d been p rom ised

. In a d d iti on, Step he n Sim p son, one of M r. A nd er son’ s e m plo yee s, testi fi ed that M r. A nd er son showed hi m a $400 , 000 check dated Se ptem b er20 , 20 02. A ccord ing to Si m p son, M r. A nd erson “kissed [ th e ch eck], p u t itin h is p oc ke t a n d h e s aid , ‘Th a n k G o d fo r st u p id A m er i cans. ’ ” R. 199 at 87.

B. A t the c o nc l us i o n o fthe t r i a l, Mr
. And e r s o n fi l e d a m otion for a j ud gm en t of acq uittal. T he district cou rt denie d t he m oti on. The j ury f ound M r. A nd er son gui l ty o n e a c h o fth e c o u n t s c h a r g e d a g a i n s th i m. A t M r. A nd erson ’s sen ten cing hearing, th e d istri ct cou rt deter m i ned that M r. A nd er so n ’ s ba se offense l eve lwas 7 an d his crim inal h istory category w as I. Th e cou rt th en ap p lie d th e fo llow in g s en te n c in g e n h an c em en ts : A tw enty- l eve l enhancem ent b ecause the tot al l oss re sul ti ng fro m the fra ud was $8, 273, 893. 50; a si x-l eve l 6 i ncre ase because the fra ud i nvol ved m or e than 25012 N o. 08

- 2925

U .S.S .G . § 3 B 1 .1(b ). 7 U
. S. S. G
. § 3C1. 1. 8 vi ct i m s; a t wo- l ev ele nha nc em en t be ca us e th e fr au d t a r g e t e d v u l n e r ab l e v i c t i ms ; a t wo - l e v e le n h a n c ement because a su b st an tialparto fthe offense w as com m i tte d o ut si de th e Uni te d S ta te s; a thr ee - l ev ele nha ncement bas ed on M r . A nd erson ’s statu s as a m an ager or sup ervi soro fthe schem e; and a tw o-lev el e nhancem ent for 7 obstru ction of j u stice. A s a result, M r. A nd erson ’s 8 a dj u s t e d o ffe n s e l e v e lw a s 4 2 , a n d th e G u i de l i ne s r e c o mm ended a se ntencin g ra nge o f36 0 m onths to l i fe i m pri sonm ent. The co urt im p osed a be l ow-gui del i nes s entence of28 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent.

II DI S C US S I ON M r. A n d er so n ap p ea ls b ot h h is c on v i c t ion an d h is sente nce. H e fi rs t co ntends thatthe Gover nm ent f ai l ed to prese nt suffi ci ent e vid ence to prove thathe pos ses sed th e k no wl edg e o ri nt en t ne ce ss ary to be gui l tyo fthe charg ed cri m es. H e al so chal l enges th e sentence im p osed by the district c o urt, arguing that the cou rt i m proper ly app l i ed var i ous s entencing enhancem ents an d c o nt en di ngtha t th e se nt en ce i m po se d b y the distri ct c ourtwas unreas onabl e. W e a dd re ss each o f th es e ar g um en ts i n tur n.N o. 08

- 2925 13

S ee a lso U n ite d S ta te s v . C a m p b ell , 985 F. 2d 341, 344- 45 ( 7th Cir

. 9 19 93 ) ( not i ng that, t o pr ove thata defen dantwas a m em berof the conspir acy, “the G overnm ent m ust offer s uffic ie nt e vidence to dem onst rat e that the def endan t knew of the cons piracy an d tha t he i n t en d ed to join an d associa te him self w ith its cr im in a l d es ig n an d p u rp o se ” (cit a tio n o m itt ed )). A. Mr
. An d e r s o n fi r s t c h a l l e n g e s th e s u ffi c i e n c y o ft he ev i den ce p resente d a t tr i al, c l ai m i ngtha t th e Gov ernm en t f ai l ed to pr o ve c er ta i n esse nt i ale l ement s o fthe c h ar ge d cr im es . M r. A n d er so n n ot es th at, to s u p p or t h is convi cti on form ai land w i re fra ud , the Gover nm ent was re quir ed to dem onst ra te that he knowingly p ar ti ci pated i n a fra ud ule nt sc he m e w i th the speci fi c intent to decei ve or ch ea t t h e s c h em e’s vic tim s. Se eU nited St at e s v. Radzi s ze wski, 47 4 F. 3d 480, 484-85 (7th Cir. 2007). Si m i l ar l y, he points o ut that, to sup porthi s co nspir acy convi cti on, the Gover nm ent was r equi re d to prove that he kne w o fthe e ss en ti alnatur e a nd sco pe ofthe charg ed consp i ra cy and that he i ntended to parti ci pate in i t. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br uun , 8 09 F.2d 397, 41 0 (7th C ir. 1987). 9 M r. A nd er son conte nd s that the ev i dence pres ented at tr ial faile d t o es ta b lish t h at h e p os se ss ed e ith er th e k n ow ledge o r the intent necess ar y t o be guilty o fthe charg ed c rim es . In su p p or t o f th is c on te n tio n, h e a tt ac ks th e c re d ib ility of L en n ox an d P ru d en za an d cla im s t h atth eir tes tim on y was notsuffi ci entl y s peci fi c to support a fi nd i ng tha t he knowingl y a nd i ntenti onal l y par ti c i pated i n the fra ud ule nt sc hem e. M r. A nd er son al so cl ai m s that14 N o. 08

- 2925 hi s o wn te st i m o ny de m o ns tr at es tha t he l ac k ed an y cr i m i na li nt en t. At t r i al, M r . Ander so n c l ai m ed tha t he neverr ead ordi scusse d the s al es scr i pts, thathe was unaw ar e that Fi rs t Cap i tal w oul d offerst or ed-v al ue car ds, an d t h a t, b y v i r tu e o f h i s p a s s i v e r o l e i n F i r s t C a p i t al, he w as u na w are of t h e frau d ulen t nat ure of First Cap ital’ s ac tiv itie s. H e c h ar ac te riz es h im se lf as a m e r e p aw n in Dalg l i sh and Prudenza’ s s chem e, and he a sse rt s that, ha d he kno wn th at Fi r stCa pi ta lwas a n i l l eg als ca m , he w oul d have had nothi ng to do with i t. W he n r ev i ew i nga c ha l l en g e to the s uffi ci en cyo fthe evi dence, “we w i l lo nl y r eve rs e a defendant’s con vic ti on i f, v i ewi ng all e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t, no r at i o na ltriero ff ac t co ul d ha ve f o und th e d efe n d an t g u i l t y o f th e c h ar ge s b ey on d a re as on ab le doubt. ” Radzi s ze wski, 47 4 F.3d at 48 4 (c ita tio n om itt ed ). In ra i si ng s uch a chal l enge, M r. A nd er son f aces a heavy bu rd en ; w e sha llnot reverse his conv ict ion un less there is n o e vid en c e f r o m w h ich a j u ry co u ld h av e fo u n d h im gu ilty of th e c h ar ge d offe n se s. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si l va , 781 F.2d 106, 108 (7th Cir. 1986). I n an att em pt to sat i sfy thi s burden, M r. A n derso n c on te n d s t h at th e jur y s h o u ld h av e d isr eg ar d ed th e t es tim ony ofLennox and Prudenza and i nste ad sho uld have cre dit ed hi s o w n ver si on o fthe f acts
. T h is c onte nti on cannot succee d. “W e r epe at ed ly have re fused to questi o n the c r edibi l i tyo fwi tn es se s” whenr ev i ewing su fficie n c y-o f-th e-e vid en c e c h alle n ge s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. R ober ts , 53 4 F
. 3d 560, 56 9 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. I t i s the pro vi nce o fthe j ur y t o a ss es s th e credibil ity o fwi tn es se s, a ndN o. 08

- 2925 15

S eeR. 19 8 a t32 ( not i ng tha tM r. Ander s on “di dn’ twant 10 w o m en ar o u n d w h en w e’r e t a lk in g ab o u t d o in g th in g s th a t .
. . a r e i lle g a l” ); Id. at35 ( des c ribi ng the s al es s c ri ptas a “go od c o n ” ); se e al so i d. a t 3 7 ( t e s t i fy i n g th a t, a ft e r di s c u s s i ng t he s al es s c ri pt s , M r. Ander s on as ke d “Are Am er i c ans thats t upi d?” ) ; R. 19 9 at 8 7 ( t es t i m ony ofSt eph enSi m ps on) ( s t at i ng thatM r. An d er s on di s pl aye d a $ 40 0, 00 0 c he c k, ki s s ed i tan d sa id “T h a n k G o d for stu p id A m er ic a n s” ). w e s h all re ve rs e s u c h cr ed ibilit y d et er m in at ion s “ on ly u n d er ex c ep tio n al c irc u m st an c es , su c h as w h er e it w as physi cal l y i m possibl e forthe w i tness to o bser ve th atwhi chhe c l ai m s o cc ur r ed, o rim p ossibl e unde rthe l aw s o fnatur e forthe occur re nce t o have tak en p lac e a t al l

. ” R a dz isze wski, 474 F
. 3d at 485 ( ci tat i ons and quotati on mar ks om i t t e d)

. Mr
. And e r s o n ha s p o i nt e d t o n o e xc e ptional circum stan ces h ere, an d the j ury w as th erefore enti tl ed to cr edi t the te sti m ony ofLennox and Prudenza. W e be l i eve that the evi dence pres ented attr i alwas su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th e j ur y ’ s ver di ct
. The Go ve r nm en t prese nted evi dence thatsupports the c on cl usi on that M r. A n d er so n kn ew th at Fir st C ap ita l w as en g a g e d in fra ud u len t a cti vi ty. Fo r exam ple , Prudenza t est i fi ed that he m et w i th M r. A nd er son on a w ee kl y b asi s t o disc uss F i r s t Ca pi t a l ’ s o pe r a t i o ns . He fur the r t e s t i fi e d that M r. A nd er son knew that F i rs t Capi talwas m i sl eadi ng i ts custo m er s. A l so, acc or ding to Pru d enza, M r. A nd er son ex p ressly ackn ow ledge d the il legal an d frau d ulen t nat ure o f th e s c h e me . T h e G o v e r n me n t a l s o p r e s e n t e d c i r c u m- 10 st an ti ale vi den ce tha t M r . Ander so n kno wi ng l y a nd i ntenti onal l y j oi ned the fra ud u l ent a cti vi ty. A ccor ding to16 N o. 08

- 2925

I n U n i te d S tat es v. B aker, 4 9 9 F
. 2 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 9 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) , we 11 con clu d ed tha t d efend an t V ela’s act of d riv ing tw o in d iv id u als t o the s i te of a d rug s al e and h i s pr es en c e duri ng two co nver s at i ons w he re the p ur c has e ofdrug s was di s c us s ed c oul d not sup p or t his con sp iracy con v iction
. Sig nifican tly, w e no ted tha t, a l th o u g h Ve l a wa s p r e s e n t du r i n g th e t wo c o n v e r s a t i o n s , he “e nga ge d onl y i n ‘ s m al l t alk ’ an d did n otpar t i c i pat e i n the conversat ion on drug deali ng.” Id. at84 7. T hus , the f ac t s of thatcase di ffe r fr om the f a c t s pr e s e nt e d h e r e ; a s we h a ve al re ad y indi c at ed, the t es t i m ony pre s en t ed a tt ri al dem ons t ra t es thatM r. A nder s on ac t i vel y par t i c i pat ed i n the m ee t i ngs (co n tin u ed ...) th e te st i m o ny e l i ci te d a t tr i al, M r . Ander son w as pr es en t at s e v e r a l me e t i n g s wh e r e l e a d s l i s t s , s a l e s s c r i p t s an d cu stom er com p lai nt s w ere d iscus sed

. In ad d iti on, M r. A n d er so n w as th e n am ed p re sid en t of Firs t C ap ita l, h eld author i ty ove r Fi rs t Capi tal ’ s fi nances, and author i zed p aym en ts for lead s lists a nd b en efi ts p acka ges. M r. A nd erso n al so es tabl i sh ed F i r st Capi ta l ’ s bus i ness ch ec k i ng acco unt, worke d on Fi rs t Capi tal ’ s o ffi ces, l eas ed vehi cl es to the c o m pan y, a nd pr o vi ded ce l lpho ne s to i ts manag e r s . F ur the r mor e , Mr
. And e r s o n man a g e d F i r s tCa pi tal w hi l e Pr ud enza and D al gl i sh w er e absent, and he r ecei ved at l eas t $ 400, 000 fro m the conspi ra cy’ s pro ceeds. Contrary to M r. A nd er son’ s a sse rt i ons, thi s e vi dence de mo n s t r a t e s th a t Mr
. An d e r s o n wa s mo r e th a n a m ere assoc iate o f D algl ish, Pru d en za an d the oth er pa rti ci pan ts i n the s ch eme. Ra th ertha n s i m pl y b eingpr es en t a ta fe w mee t i ng s wh er e i l l e g a la c t i v i t i e s we r e di s c us s e d, cf. U nited Sta tes v. B a k er, 4 99 F.2d 845, 847 (7th C ir. 1974), 11N o. 08

- 2925 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 and convers ati ons wh ere Firs t Capital ’ s oper a ti ons were di s c us s e d. Se e a l s o Uni t e d St a t e s v . Si l va , 7 81 F. 2d 106, 109 ( 7th Cir

. 1986) 12 ( holding that the defe nd ant’ s f als e re port that hi s vehicl e had bee n s t ol en, hi s f al s e re pre s en t ation tha the ha d dri venthe veh i c l e on a certa in da t e, an d the f ac tthathe i ns ur ed the vehicl e f or $23, 000, even though he ow ed onl y $6, 000 , were sufficient to d em on strate th at the d e fen d an t inten d ed to fu rt h er th e c o n sp ir a cy ); U n ite d S ta te s v . G a rc ia , 562 F. 2d 411, 414 ( 7th Ci r. 19 77 ) ( c onc l uding thata j ur y c oul d i nferthatthe defen dantpar t i c i pat ed in the c ons pi ra c y wher e the defen dant was f ound i n pos s es s i on ofpr oc ee ds fro m a drug t ra ns ac t i on afterh e p u t a drug purchaser i n contac t with hi s brother, w h o d ea lt d ru g s). M r. A nd er son too k a n act i ve ro le in Fi rs t Capi tal, to ok ste ps to a dva nc e i ts a ct i vi ti es a nd r ec ei ve d a o ne - th ird sh ar e o fi ts p rofi ts
. A r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d ha ve c o ncl ud ed, bas ed on thi s e vi dence , that M r. A nd er son ac te d wi thkno wl edg e o fF i r stCa pi ta l ’ s fr au d ule nt ac tiv ity an d w ith th e sp ec ific in te n t t o d efr au d Firs t C ap ita l’s v ict im s. S e eR a d z i s z e wski, 474 F
. 3d at4 85 ( no ting th atdo cument ary e vi den ce s ho wed tha t funds f r o m the fr au dul en t sc he m e wer e depo si te d i nt o a n a cc o untco ntr o l l ed bythe de fend an t a nd c o nc l udi ngtha t th i s an d othe r evi dence d em onst ra ted thatthe defe nd ant was a k no wi ngpa r ti ci pan t in the s ch eme)
. W e th er efo r e co n- 12 c l ud e tha t e v i de nc e p r e s e nt e d a tt r i a la de qu a t e l y s up po r ts M r . Ander so n’ s co nv i ct i o n.18 N o. 08

- 2925 B. W e n o w tu r n t o Mr
. An d e r s o n ’ s c h a l l e n g e s t o t he sente nce i m posed by the dist ri ct c ourt
. M r. A nd er son chal l enges the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s app l i cati on o fa tw o- l eve l s e nt e nc i nge nh a nc e men tf o ro b s t r uc t i o n o fj us ti ce a nd a th ree- l ev ele nha nc ementb as ed o n h i s r o l e i n the c o ns p ira c y . He fur the rc o nt e nd s tha tthe s e nt e nc e i mpo s e d b y th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as u n re as on ab le.

1 . Th e Obs t ruc t i o n- Of -J us t i c e E nha nc e me nt M r . And e r s o n a s s e r t s tha t he s ho ul d n o th a v e r e c e i v e d a sente nci ng enhancem ent under U .S.S. G. § 3 C1. 1, wh i ch pr o vi des f o ra t wo- l evel en ha nc ementwhena de fen dan t obs tr ucts o r att em pts to o bstruct the i nvest i gat i on, p ro sec u tio n, or se n te n c in g of t h e c h a r g ed cr im e. Id. He mai ntains th at his testim ony at tri al am ou nt e d to no m ore than a si m ple deni alo fgui l t, wh i ch, he cl ai m s, cannot supp or t the appli cati on o fthe obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce enhancem ent. W e r evi ew the f actualfi nd i ngs underl yi ng the di str i ct cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe obs tr ucti on e nhancem en t for cl earer ro r, and w e r evi ew de nov o w hethertho se fin d in g s ad eq u at ely su p p or t t h e e n h an c em en t. U nited Sta tes v. Ho use, 5 5 1 F
. 3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. As we previ ousl y hav e no ted, a dist ri ct c ou rt m ay i m pose an o bs truct i o n- o f

-j us ti ce e nha nc ementb as ed o n i ts c o nc lu sio n th at a d efe n d an t c om m itt ed p erj u ry at tria l. U n i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 53 F.3d 10 73, 1081 (7th C ir. ),N o. 08

- 2925 19

S ee U. S. S. G. § 3C1
. 1 c m t
. n. 4 ( “Not e 4” ) ( l i s t i ng “ c om m i t t i ng, 13 su b o rn in g , or at te m p t i n g to su b o rn p erju ry ” as an “e xa m p le [] ofthe type[ ] ofc onduc tt o whi c h [ the obs tr uc t i on] adj us t m en t a p p lie s” ). cert
. den ied, 129 S. Ct
. 2 452 (2009). T hu s, ifa district cou rt 13 fi nds tha t a defen dan t “g av e f al se t es ti m o ny c o nc erning a ma t e r i a lma t t e rwi th the wi l l fuli nt e ntt o p r o v i de f al se t es ti m o ny, r athe rtha n a s a r esul t o fc o nfus i o n, m i sta ke, o r f aul ty m em or y, ” the appli cati on o fan obst ru c tio n en h an c em en t is w ar ra n te d

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hach , 1 62 F
. 3d 93 7, 9 49 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( ci ta ti o ns a nd qu otation m arks om itted ). Befo re applying the obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce enhancem ent, the dist ri ct c ou rtga ve consi derabl e thought t o M r . Ander so n’ s o bj ec ti o n t o the e nha nc ementa nd c o ndu cted a re vi ew of i ts tr i alnot es. The co urt then co ncl ud ed that al th ou gh, atfi rs t, M r. A nd er son w as not appri sed full y of th e n atu re of First Cap ital’ s activities, he n everth eless l earned a g re at dealabo ut Fi rs t Capi tal, as si ste d the c om pany and agr eed to se rv e a s i ts p re si dent. R. 183 at 14. The c ou rtfurtherco ncl ud ed that M r. A nd er son “d id kn ow w ha t [the] bus iness w a s and becam e a pa rt o fi t,” and i t spe ci fi ca l l y “ [ f o und] tha t [ M r . Ander so n] did i n f act tes ti fy f al sel y a t t ri al

. ” Id. at15
. Gi v e n the s e j udi ci a lfi nd i ng s , we c a nn o ta c c e pt M r . Ander son ’ s ch al l en g e to thi s enha nc ement
. The cour t d i d not pre dica te i ts appli cati on o fthe enhancemen to n M r . And e r s o n’ s m er e de ni a lo fg ui l t
. Ins t e a d, afte r c o m par i ngM r . Ander so n’ s te st i m o ny wi ththe evid en ce p r e sen ted by the Go vern m en t, th e d istri ct cou rt20 N o. 08

- 2925 d et er m in ed th at M r. A n d er so n te st if i ed fals ely attria l. I t there f or e co ncl ud ed that M r. A nd er son w i l l fu ll y obst r uct ed j us ti ce b y f al se l y de ny i nga ny kno wl edg e o fthe c rim in a l na tu re of th e e n te rp ris e. See, e. g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. G o din ez , 1 10 F
. 3d 44 8, 4 57( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( co nc l udi ng that the defendant’s “deni al of an y know l edge that ther e w as a co cai ne tr ansact i on g oi ng o n” was “not th e sa m e as a g en er alde ni alo fg ui l t” a nd r ej ectin g the defe nd ant’ s s entencing chal l enge)
. Giv en the ev i dence ag ains t M r . Ander so n, we ca nno t sa y th at th is conclusion w as clearly err one ou s. T he district cou rt pr o per l y i den ti fi ed th e f al se t es ti m o ny s upp o r tingthe enhancem en t and m ade an ind ependent fi nd i ng o f perj ury ; ha vingdo ne s o , i t was pe r m i tt ed to i m po se the e n h a n c em en t. SeeU nite d States v. B ank s- G iom be tt i, 24 5 F. 3d 949, 95 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( concl ud i ng tha t the di str i ct cour t di d noter r i n apply i ng an obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce enha nc ementwheni t “c r edi ted th e te st i m o ny o fthe [ w i tness es] o ver[ the defendant ’ s] and f ound by a prep on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e t h a t [th e d efe n d an t’s ] te st im on y w as bo t h fals e a n d m at er ial” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O f cky, 2 37F
. 3d 90 4, 9 10 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( ho l d ing thatthe di st r i ctc o ur t “meta l lthe s ta nda r ds r equi r ed f o rthe [ obs tr ucti on- of

-j usti ce] enhancem ent” w hen i t wei ghed th e co nfl i ct i ngt es ti m o ny a nd c o nc l ude d tha t th e d efend an t com m itted perjury).

2 . Th e Man a g e r- Or- Sup e rv i s o rE nha nc e me nt M r . And e r s o n a l s o c ha l l e ng e s the d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a ppli cati on o fa se n tencing enhancem ent purs uant toN o. 08

- 2925 21

For the pur pos es ofth ats ec t i on, a “ ’ par t i c i pant ’ i s a per s on 14 w h o is cr im in a lly respo n sib le for th e c o m m iss io n o f th e o ffen se ,” a l th o u g h th e p e r s o n n e e d n o th a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d. U. S
. S
. G. § 3B1.1 cm t. n. 1. A lthoug h the f act ors enum erat ed in the com m entar y w ere 15 des i gne d t o a s s i s tc our t s i n di s t i ngui s hin g leade rs fro m m anag er s, w e als o have “f ound thatthe y are . . . rel evant i n asc erta in in g w h et h er an in d iv id u a l h a d a s u p er v iso ry ro le at al l.” U n ite d S ta te s v . Ho w ell , 527 F. 3d 646 , 64 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( c i t at i on o m itt ed ). U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1(b) , whi cha utho r i ze s a th r ee - l ev ele nhancem ent when a defendant ac te d a s a m anage r or supervi soro fa cri m i nalact i vi ty. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t M r. A nd erson exer ci sed a m anage ri al orsuperv i sory r ol e in the offense f orcl earer ror. U n ited St at e s v. Sa i nz- Pre ci ado , 566 F.3d 708 , 714 (7th C ir. 2009). T o q u alify for a n e n h an c em en t u n d er se c tio n 3B 1.1 , a d efend an t “m us t hav e been the or g an i zer, l ead er, m an ager, o rs upe r vi so rof one ormor e o th erpa r ti ci pan ts ” i n the ch ar g ed cr i m i na la ct i vi ty
. U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1 cmt. n. 2. The 14 Gui del i ne s do no t defi ne th e te r m s “mana g er ” a nd “su p ervisor. ” Th e com m en tary to sect ion 3B 1.1, how ever, does setf or th se ver alf acto rs thatthi s co urt m ay use to as c er ta inw h et h er an ind ivid u a l ha d a su p er vis or y ro le inan offe n se . U nite d Sta te s v. How el l , 52 7 F
. 3d 646, 64 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Those f acto rs i ncl ud e: 15 ( 1) the e xe r ci se o fde ci si o n- m ak i nga utho r i ty ; ( 2) the na tu r e o f par ti ci pat i o n i n th e co m m i ss i o n o f th e offen se ; ( 3) the r ec r ui tment o fa cc o m pl i ce s; ( 4) the cl ai m ed ri ght t o a l ar ger shar e ofthe frui ts ofthe cri m e;22 N o. 08

- 2925

T his te stim on y sup p or ts the d istrict cou rt’ s con clu sion in 16 t wo w ays : Fi rs t, i tdem ons t ra t es thatM r. Ander s on had the author i t y t o de c i de how m uc h c om pen s at i on Lenn ox , a non - (co n tin u ed ...) ( 5) the degre e o fpart i ci pati on in pla nning and or gani zi ngth e o ffen se ; ( 6) the na tu r e an d s co pe o fthe i l l ega lact i vi ty; ( 7) the degre e o fco ntro land author i ty exer ci sed o vero ther s. Id

. ( ci ti ng U.S
. S. G. § 3 B1. 1 cm t. n. 4)
. “N o on e of these f acto rs is consi dered a prer equi si te to the e nhancem ent, an d , at th e sam e tim e, th e fac to rs ar e no t n e c es sa rily e nt i t l e d t o e qu a lwe i g ht

. ” U nited Sta tes v. Wa sz , 45 0 F
. 3d 720, 729 (7th C ir. 2006). A lth o u g h n ot allof th ese factors m ust be pre sent, the enhancem ent c annot be ap p li ed unle ss the defendant “ ‘ exer ci sed so m e co nt ro lo ver othe rs i nvol ved i n the com m i ssi on ofthe offense. ’ ” U nited States v. G raci a , 2 72 F
. 3d 86 6, 8 77( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pagan , 196 F.3d 884 , 892 (7th C ir. 1999)). M r . Ander so n c l ai m s th atthe Go ve r nm en t pr es en te d no evi dence thathe e xerci sed any i nfluence o r contr olo ver Pr ude nz a, Da l g l i sho ra ny othe rpa r ti ci pan ts i n the c o nspi ra cy. W e di sag re e. There ar e m any f acts

— severalo f w hi ch fi t i nto one or m or e of the cate gories e num er ate d i n N ote 4

— that supp or t the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t M r. A nd erson m an aged or su p ervised one or m ore pa rti ci pants in the conspi ra cy. Fi rs t, ther e i s e vi dence that M r. A nd er son exer ci sed deci si on- m aking autho ri ty ove r parti ci pants in the schem e: Lennox tes ti fi ed that M r. A nd er son approv ed h i s s al ar y a nd si gni ng bo nus, R. 196 at 93-95 , and Prudenza st ate d that M r. A nd er son 16N o. 08

- 2925 23
(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 p artn er p articip an t in the con sp iracy , w ou ld receiv e for his ro l e i n the s c he m e. Seco nd, i ts ugge s t s thatM r. Ander s on was Len nox ’ s bos s , r athe r thanhi s e qua l , thu s s uppor t i ng the c our t ’ s c onc l us i on thatM r. Anderso n supe rvi s ed a tl ea s ton e p a rt ic ip a n t. S e eU n i t e d S t a t e s v . P o l i c h e mi, 219 F. 3d 698, 712 ( 7th Cir

. 2000) ( “A lthoug h the co urt did not find thi s f act expli ci tl y, i ts disc uss ion ofN eal ’ s rel ati onship t o Ed w ard R u ssey a nd L arr y O este r m a n ind icates th at it f ou nd the n ecess ar y s u per vi s i on. Neal was pr es i dentofKone x M ar ke t i ng, a nd Rus s e y a nd Oe s t e r m a n we r e s a l e s m e n f orthe c ompa ny . As su ch , N ea l w a s th ei r b o ss, n o t th ei r e q u a l.” ). A l th o u g h L e n n o x w a s i n i t i a l l y l i s t e d i n t h e c r i mi n a l c o mp la in t, see R .1 at 1, i t ap p ear s that h e w as g ran ted im m u nity in ex ch a n g e fo r h is c o o p e r a tio n . S ee R
. 196 at 23; R.197 at61- 67; R .200 a t 119 . N e v erth eless, the f act th at L en no x w as no t ultim at el y pr os ec ut ed o r c onvi c t ed doe s no tpr eclud e the fi ndi ng thath e w a s a “parti ci pant” in the offense f or the purp oses of U .S. S.G
. § 3B 1.1. A s the com m en tary to that pro v ision no tes, “[a] ‘ p articip an t’ is a p erso n w ho is c r i m i n ally resp on sible fo r t h e c o m m iss io n o f th e o ffen se , butne e d n o t ha vebe e n c o nvict ed

. ” U.S. S. G
. § 3B1. 1 cm t. n. 1 ( em phas is add ed). M oreover, w e have p re v iousl y acce pted the argum ent thatan i nd ividual who t e s ti f i e d u nd e r a g r a nto fi m m un i t y m a y be c on s i de r e d a

“ p a rt ic ip a n t” in an o ffen se . SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Jackso n , 95 F. 3d 5 00 , 51 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96 )
. I n Jackso n , w e affir m ed the dis tr ic t c our t ’ s den i al ofa re duct i on underU. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 2 ( m i t i gat i ng role i n the offense ) , w hich defi nes “ p art ic ipant” i n accor dan ce w ith th e c o m m en ta ry to U .S.S .G . § 3 B 1 .1. SeeU .S.S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 cm t. n .1. In that c ase , the G overnm ent argued thats everal t e l e m arket e r s o the r tha n the i nd i c t e d de fe nd a nt s s ho ul d b e c ons i der ed c ri m i nal ly re s pons ibl e “pa rt i c i pant s ” i n the (co n tin u ed ...)24 N o. 08

- 2925

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 sc h em e. Jackso n , 95 F. 3d a t511. Sp eci fi c al l y, the Gover nm en t noted that “two ofthe

. . . em ploye es w ho tes ti fie d w ere gr ant ed i m m uni t y, ” a nd that “the appa re ntna t ur e ofthe fra ud from the sc ri pt it se lf

. . . st rongly suggest [ ed] th a t o ther tel em a rk et ers could have been indict ed and prosec uted” had th e G o v er n m en t so u g h t to d o so . Id. The defen dantdi d no t reply t o thatargum ent, w hich w e f ound “convinci ng.” Id. W e have c ons i der ed c ont ro l ove r an en t er prise, ev enona 17 tem p o ra ry basi s, to be a f acts up porting the app li cat ion ofan en h a n ce m en t u n d er U .S.S .G
. § 3B 1 .1. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Sheikh , 36 7 F
. 3d 6 83 , 68 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( not i ng thatthe defen dant “exc lus ivel y ran the s tore and d ir ect ed Y ousef’ s act iv iti es for a p er io d o f tim e d u ri n g w h ic h th e fr a u d co n tin u ed ” ). o ve r sa w the who l e o fF i r stCa pi ta l ’ s o per at i o ns whi l e he an d Dal gl i sh were i n I tal y. S eco nd , the nature o f 17 M r . Ander so n’s par ti ci pat i o n in the o ffen se s uppo r ts the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co nc l us i o n; b ec ause M r . Ander so n c o ntr olle d t h e p u rs e s tr in gs of Firs t C ap ita l, h e like ly had ei therdi re ct o r i nd i re ct fi nanci alco ntro lo ver othe r parti ci pants in t he ent er pri se. Thi rd, M r. A nd er son cl ai m ed a o ne - th i r d s ha r e o fF i r st Capi ta l ’ s pr o fi ts
. The evi dence ofM r. A nd er son’ s deci si on- m aking autho ri ty ove r Lennox, hi s contr olo fthe enter pri se du ring Pr ud enza an d Da lgl ish’s abse n c e , his con trol of Fi rst C ap ital’ s fi na nc es an d hi s r ec ei pt o fa l ar g e sh ar e o fF i r stCa pi ta l’ s profi ts supp or ts the di str i ct c ourt’ s co ncl usi on that Mr
. A n d e r s o n w a s a ma n a g e ro rs u p e r v i s o ro fth e c r i m-N o. 08

- 2925 25

SeeSheikh , 36 7 F
. 3d a t68 8 ( c onc l udi ng thatthe c our td i d not 18 c l ea rl y e rrby de em i ng the defen danta s up ervi s or whenthe defen dant “ m ade c ount l es s depo s i t s ofi l l eg al l y obt ai ne d f ood s t am ps , obt ai ne d a l ar ge por t i on ofthe pr oc ee ds fro m the fra u d a s com pared to other parti ci pants .
. . ex cl usi vely ran t h e s t o r e a n d d i r e c t e d Y o u s e f’ s a c t i v i t i e s f o r a p e r i o d o ft i me duri ng whi c h the fra ud c ont i nue d, an d t er m i nat ed the s er v i c e s o f th e b o o k k e e p i n g fi r m wh e n i t p o i n t e d out a cc o u n tin g irr eg u la ri tie s” ); U n ite d S ta te s v . G ra c ia , 272 F. 3d 86 6, 87 7 ( 7th Cir

. 2001 ) ( c onc l udi ng thatthe di s t ri c tc our tdi d not er r i n a ppl yi ng a s ec t ion 3 B 1. 1 e nha nc em en twher e the defen d a n t, amo n g o th e r th i n g s , “ p r o v i d e d o r d i r e c t e d l a r g e s u ms ofm oney far gre at erthanthe $5 0 o r $7 5 pa i d t o the m i nor p a rt ic ip a n ts a n d re ce iv ed a c o rr es p o n d in g ly far la rg er sh a re ” ). i na le nt e r pr i s e . We the r e f o r e c o nc l ud e tha tthe di str i ct 18 cou rt did not clearly err in ap p lying the m an ager-orsupervi sorenhancem ent.

3. Th e Reasonableness O fM r . A nd er son’ s Sentence I n h is third an d final c h a lle n ge to his sent en ce, M r. Ander son c lai m s th atthe s en te nc e i m po se d b y the di s t r i c tc o u r ti s u n r e a s o n ab l e . We r e v i e w th e s u b s t an tive reason ablen ess of a senten ce u nd er t he abu se-ofd isc re tio n st an d ar d

. U nite d State s v . O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d 691, 698 (7th Cir. 2008). W he re, as here, the d istri ct cou rt i m poses a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence , i t i s pre sum ed that th e s en te n c e is n otu n re as on ab ly h igh

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wallace, 531 F. 3d 504, 507 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 ) ( “A se ntence wi th i n the [ g ui del i ne s] r an g e i s pr es um pti vely r ea so n-26 N o. 08

- 2925 abl e, and i t fol l ows that a s entence bel ow th e ra n ge al so is presu m p tively not too high.” ( citations om itted ))
. M r. A nd er son conte nd s that hi s s entence w as unreasonab l e fortwo r eas ons: Fi rs t, he assert s that the di str i ct cour t f ai l ed to co nsi der hi s a dvanced age, hi s m edi cal hi sto ry, h is l i m i ted cul pabi l i ty and his go od char acte r w hen deter m i ni ng hi s s entence
. S eco nd , h e a sse rt s that ther e i s a n unj usti fi abl e di spari ty be tw een hi s s entence and the s entence s o fhi s co conspi ra tor s. The fi r sto fthe se a r g um en ts i s uns uppo rted bythe r ec o r d. Be f o r e i m po singM r . Ander so n’ s se nt en ce , the di st r i ctc o ur t co ns i der ed a numbero ff ac tor s, i nc l udi ng M r. A nd er son’ s a ge, physi calco nd i ti on a nd educati on l ev el, Co ng r es s’ de te r m i na ti o n tha t te l emar k eti ng fr au d wa r r a n t s “ a s t i ffp e n a l ty d u e t o th e n a tu r e o fth e c r i me an d th e number s o f peo pl e affec te d, ” th e sc op e of the co ns pi r ac y, the vul ne r ab i l i tyo fi ts v i ct i m s, a nd the ac ti o ns t ak enb y the c o co ns pi r at o r s to a vo i d de te ct i o n. R. 183 at 53- 56. It speci fi cal l y ind i cate d, m or eov er, that i t w as depa r tingfr o m the r ec o m m en ded se nt en cing ra ng e b a s e d o n i t s a s s e s s men to fMr
. And e r s o n’ s a g e, hi s phy si ca lc o ndi ti o n a nd, mos t si g ni fi ca ntl y, i ts c o ncl us i o n tha t M r . A nd erso n “ was t o a c er ta i n e xt en t du ped by the co nspir acy. ” Id. at56 . Thus, the cour t a deq u at ely ex p lain ed th e s en te n c e itim p os ed , a n d itsu ffici en tly a ddr es se d M r . Ander so n’ s cl ai m tha t, i n l i g ht ofhi s a ge, m edi calc on dit i on a nd r el ati ve cul pabi l i ty, a b elo w -gu id elin es se n te n c e w as w ar ra n te d

. C f. U nited St at e s v. Ki nc ann on , 5 6 7F
. 3 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( d e e mi ngthe i mpo s i t i o n o fa thi r ty - y e a rs entence “ pr e s ump-N o. 08

- 2925 27 ti vel y r eas onabl e” w here t h e dist ri ct c ourtco nsi dered th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s c l a i m f o r l e n i e n c y i n l i g h t o fh i s a dvanced ag e, but d ecl i ned to i m pose a be l ow-gui del i nes sen ten ce in li gh t of oth er cou nt ervailing f acto rs). M r. A nd er son’ s s eco nd chal l enge to the r eas onabl eness of h is sente nce al so m ust f ai l

. M r. A nd er son cl ai m s that hi s s entence sho uld be vac ate d i n l i ght o fthe dispar i ty b et w ee n h is s en te n c e a nd the sente nces ofh is c o d e fe n d a n t s , w h i c h, h e s u b mi t s , i s unj u s t i fi e d

. We previ ousl y hav e co ncl ud ed, however, tha t an ass er ted disc re pancy betw een the se ntences o ftw o codefendants i s a n i nsuffi ci ent b asi s forchal l engi ng a sente nce. O m ole, 5 23 F
. 3d at7 00 ( “T hi s co urt re fus es t o v i ew the disc re pa n c y between sente nces ofco defe nd ants as a bas is for cha ll en gin g a se nt en ce.”). W e sha llnot d isturb a s en te n c e b as ed on a cla im of an u nj u st ifiab le dispar i ty between the sente nces ofc od efendants unl ess the defendant can s how thatthe se n tence i m posed “cr eat es a di spari ty bet w ee n the l ength of[ hi s] se ntence a nd a l lo the rs i mi l ar se nt e nc e s i mpo s e d nat i onwi de

. ” Id. (citation and qu otation m arks om itted ). M r. A n d er so n h as failed to d e m o n st ra te th at th er e is a n u n wa r r a n t e d d i s p a r i ty b e t we e n h i s s e n t e n c e a n d t he sente nces ofdefenda n ts w i th si m i l arr eco rds who have b ee n co n vic te d of sim ilar cr im es . Se eU nited Stat e s v. Bosc ar i no , 43 7 F
. 3d 634, 63 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. M r. A nd er son has no t pointed to any case s w h er e a si m i l ar l y s i tuate d d efe n d an t re c eiv ed a se n te n c e t h at w as sign ifica n tly l ow er t h an hi s o w n. In hi s br i ef, M r. A nd er son poi nts t o a num bero fcas es that, he c l ai m s, i nvol ved defendants28 N o. 08

- 2925

Tw o o fthe t el em ar ke t i ng fra ud case s c i t ed by M r. Ander s on 19 involve def endan ts w ho w ere se ntence d u nd er an earl ie r gui del i ne s pr ovi s i on pertai ni ng t o o ffen s es i nvol vi ng fra udule n t c o n d u ct
. S eeU .S.S .G . § 2 F 1 .1, d eleted by co n so li d ation w ith U. S. S. G. § 2B1. 1 ( effec t i ve N ov. 1, 20 01 )
. Underthats ec t i on, the appl i c abl e bas e offen s e l eve l f or i ndi vi du al s c onvi c t ed o f fraud w as se t at6; w here the los s from the fraud ulent condu ct excee d ed $ 5 ,00 0,000 b u t w as less than $10 ,000,00 0, the b ase o ffen se le v el w a s en h a n ce d b y o n ly 14
. S ee U .S.S .G . §§ 2F 1 .1(a ), ( b)( 1) ( O ) ( 2000 ). M r. An derson, how ever, w as se ntence d u nd er U .S. S.G
. § 2B 1.1 ; u nd er th e term s of that p ro v ision, his base offense l ev el w as se t at7, and he rece ived a 20- le vel enhancem ent because the los s cause d by the fraud ex ce ed ed $7, 000, 000. U.S. S. G
. §§ 2B 1. 1( a) ( 1) , ( b)( 1) ( K )
. Thu s, any differen c e b e t we e n Mr
. An de r s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d th e s e n t e n c e s of thos e in d ividuals se ntence d u nd er s ect ion 2F1. 1 m ay be expl ai ne d by the di fferenc e i n the bas e offen s e l eve l s an d en

ha nc em en ts set for th in the a p p licab le gu id eline s pr ov ision s. convi cted o fsi m i l arcr i m es w ho r ecei ved se ntences di sp ro p or tio n at ely sh or te r th an h is ow n . SeeA p p ell an t’s Br. 43- 45. H owever, the disp ar i ty i n sent enci ng r efl ects legi tim ate f actu al d ifferenc es betw een M r . A nd erson ’s case and thos e o n w hi ch he r el i es. Of the c ase s ci ted by M r . And e r s o n, o nly thr e e i nv o l v e te l ema r k e t i ngfr a ud

. Of th os e three te l em ar ket i ng fra ud cas es, two i nvol ve defe nd ants w ho were sente nced und era gui del i nes provi si on that i s no l onge r i n f or ce. Fur ther m or e, i t i s no t 19 c le a r that an y of th e telem arketing ca ses cited by M r. A n d er so n inv olv e d m or e t h an 25 0 v ict im s, n or d oe s it appear that a ny o fth os e case s invol ved cr i m es i n w hi ch a s ub s t a nt i a lp a r to fthe o ffe ns e wa s co mm i t t e d o ut s i deN o. 08

- 2925 29

Furtherm ore, to the ex te nt that M r. An derson’ s se ntence 20 di ffe r s fr om hi s c od e fe nd a nt s ’ s e nt e nc e s , tha t di ffe r e nc e m ay be ex pl ai ne d by h i s c odefen dant s ’ wil l i ngne s s t o pl ea d gui l t y, the i r c oope ra t i on with the G ov ern m en t, an d the i m pos i t i on of a two-l evel obst ructi on-of-ju sti ce enhancem ent in M r. An ders o n ’s c a se . Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Bos ca r i no , 43 7 F
. 3d 6 34 , 63 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c on c l udi ngtha tth e di ffe r e nc e be t we e n the c od e fe nd

ant s ’ s en t en ces di d notam ountt o a n un warr ant ed di s par i t y, because i t was “j ustifie d b y legi ti m ate consi derati ons, s uch a s re w a rd s fo r c o o p er a tio n ” ). ofthe U ni ted S tat es. Those facts w er e, however, es tabl i shed i n thi s ca se, and theyhad a s i gni fi cant i m pact o n M r. A nd er son ’ s s e nt e nc i ng r ange; M r. A nd er son re cei ved a si x-l eve li ncre ase i n hi s o ffense l eve lbec ause of th e n u m b e r o fvic tim s o f th e o ffen se , see U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1.1(b) ( 2) ( C), and a tw o- l eve li ncre ase bec ause a s ubst anti alpa r t o fthe s ch eme wa s co m m i tt ed o ut si de th e U n ite d Sta te s, see U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1.1(b)(9)( B ). The f actualdi stincti ons between the case s ci ted by M r. A nd er son and his cas e, to gether w i th the di ffer ence i n the gui del i nes pr ovi si ons an d enhancem ents ap p li cab le in th ose cas es, m ake th e case s cited b y M r. A nd er son a poo r b asis f orco m pari son. The di ffer ence between M r. A nd er son’ s s entence and the sente nces of the defendants in thos e ca ses m ay have bee n caused by an y one o f a nu m ber of f acts thatdistingu ish M r. A nd erson ’s c as e fr o m the o th er s. Thu s, we ca nno t co ncl ud e that there i s a ny unwar rant e d dispar i ty b et w een M r. A n d er so n ’s s en te n c e a n d th e s en te n c es of sim ilar ly si tuate d defendants nati onw i de. 2030 N o. 08

- 2925 A ccor dingl y, we m ust co nc lu d e that M r. A nd er son has f a i led to es ta b lish an y u nj u st ified d isp ar ity be tw ee n h is se nt en ce a nd th e s en te nc es o fs i m i l ar l y - si tu at ed defen dan ts
. Be ca us e M r . Ander so n h as no t pr es en te d a ny evi dence o r ar gum ents suffi ci ent t o ove rco m e the pre

su m pti o n tha t hi s be l ow -gui del i ne s se nt en ce i s r ea so nab le, w e s h all n otd ist u rb h is s en te n c e o n ap p ea l.
Conclusi on F o rthe r ea so ns s etf o r thi n thi s o pi ni o n, we affi r m the d ec isio n of th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. A FFI RMED

9- 3- 09