[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13679

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20876-JEM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALLAND PHILIDOR, 

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

No. 12-13724

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20876-JEM-3

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 1 of 7 
2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLMAN PHILIDOR, 

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 29, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alland Philidor and his brother Willman Philidor (collectively, the 

“Philidors”) each pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to steal government funds, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and one count of theft of government funds, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, for their participation in a scheme that involved 

submitting fraudulent tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service using stolen 

Social Security numbers, receiving refund checks from the federal government, 

and depositing these proceeds in various bank accounts of corporate entities 

controlled by them. The presentence investigation reports (“PSI”) indicated that 

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 2 of 7 
3

there were thousands of victims whose Social Security numbers were fraudulently 

used by the Philidors. Accordingly, the PSI recommended that a six-level 

enhancement be applied to their base offense level because the offense involved 

250 or more victims. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 

2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (Nov. 1, 2012). The PSI also noted that the government had only 

positively identified twenty-six of the taxpayer victims. 

The Philidors objected to the statements in the PSI concerning the number of 

victims and the six-level enhancement. Although they conceded that the 

government’s discovery materials identified more than 250 Social Security 

numbers that were used to file over 250 fraudulent tax returns for which they 

received proceeds, the Philidors argued that the government failed to meet its 

burden to show that the offense involved 250 actual, living victims. The District 

Court overruled the objection and imposed a sentence incorporating the six-level 

enhancement. 

The Philidors appealed their sentence, each raising the same issue, and we 

consolidated their appeals. They argue that the District Court erred in imposing 

the § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) enhancement because the government did not show by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 250 of the listed Social Security numbers were 

authentic and belonged to living people. Upon review of the record and 

consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm the District Court.

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 3 of 7 
4

We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. 

Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 887 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court may rely on 

undisputed facts contained in the PSI in determining a sentence. United States v. 

Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). But when a defendant challenges one 

of the factual bases of his sentence, the government has the burden of proving the 

disputed fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Gupta, 572 F.3d at 887. A fact 

finding is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing all the evidence, the court “is 

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a six-level increase to a base offense 

level if the crime involves 250 or more victims. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). For 

the purposes of § 2B1.1, “victim” means “any person who sustained any part of the 

actual loss” attributed to the crime. Id. comment. (n.1) (application note). In cases 

involving means of identification, such as a Social Security number, “victim” also 

includes “any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or 

without authority.” Id. comment. (n.4(E)) (application note). A means of 

identification must be of an “actual (i.e., not fictitious) individual.” Id. comment. 

(n.1); see 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7) (a means of identification must be able to be used 

“to identify a specific individual”).

The District Court did not clearly err in finding that there were 250 or more 

victims affected by the Philidors’ crime. The undisputed portions of the PSI 

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 4 of 7 
5

indicate that the Philidors’ bank statements list over 250 Social Security numbers 

and that these numbers correspond to tax refunds issued based on fraudulently 

submitted tax returns. Based on the fact that the Internal Revenue Service issued 

refunds for tax returns listing those numbers, the District Court made the legitimate 

inference that the Social Security numbers corresponded to actual persons. See

United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354, 1367 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating that the 

district court is “free to make” reasonable inferences but cannot rely on an 

inference that is “speculative to the point of being clearly erroneous”). As we have 

said in the context of government-issued identification, it is not necessary to 

present proof that the government verifies an individual’s identity before it issues a 

driver’s license or passport, because it is reasonable to conclude, “based on 

ordinary human experience,” that the government “routinely obtain[s] an 

applicant’s identity to verify the authenticity of that identity.” United States v. 

Doe, 661 F.3d 550, 563 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

United States v. Gomez-Castro, 605 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating that, 

to infer that governments verify the identity information they require applicants to 

provide, “no special proof is required; a trier of fact can rely on common sense”). 

Here, likewise, the District Court could infer, based on common sense and ordinary 

human experience, that the Internal Revenue Service verifies identifying 

information, like Social Security numbers, before issuing a tax refund. 

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 5 of 7 
6

Accordingly, the fact that the Internal Revenue Service paid the refunds to the 

Philidors indicates that the Social Security numbers used to procure those refunds 

are associated with real people. The District Court’s conclusion was not clearly 

erroneous.

Finally, the District Court did not err in applying the § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C)

enhancement without first finding that the victims were living. The language in 

the sentencing guidelines is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. United 

States v. Pompey, 17 F.3d 351, 354 (11th Cir. 1994). A victim in this context is a 

person whose means of identification was used unlawfully. A “means of 

identification” is limited to “an actual (i.e., not fictitious) individual.” U.S.S.G. § 

2B1.1 comment. (n.1). Because “i.e.” is an abbreviation for “that is,” the plain 

meaning of the language used by Congress was that “not fictitious” was the 

exclusive definition for “actual.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 749 (7th ed. 1999). 

We recently came to a similar conclusion in the context of the aggravated identity 

theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). See United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 

F.3d 1220, 1223 (11th Cir. 2012) (concluding that 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) 

“punishes theft of the identity of an actual person, regardless of whether that 

person is still alive”). Accordingly, the plain meaning of the phrase “actual” does 

not distinguish between living and deceased persons. 

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 6 of 7 
7

We find no error in the District Court’s application of the § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) 

enhancement. The sentence imposed by the District Court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-13679 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 7 of 7