The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above
. * 08-5838-c r USA v. Dodson U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru ling s b y s u mm a r y o r d e r d o n o t h a v e p r e c e d e n t i a l e ffe c t . C i t a t i o n t o s u mm a r y o r d e r s fi led a f ter Jan uary1, 20 07, is p ermitted a nd is go vern ed by this c ourt’s Loc al R ule 3 2.1 an d Feder al R ule o f Ap pellate Procedur e 32 .1. I n a br ief or other pap er in w hich a litiga nt c ites a summary orde r, in ea ch para grap h in w hich a cita tion app ears, at least o ne citation must eith er b e to the Federal A ppe ndixor be accomp anied bythe no tation: “(summary orde r).” Apa rty c iting a su mmary ord er must serve a co p y of t h ats u mma ryo rd er t og et h er with the pa p er in whic h t h e su mma ryo rd er is c it ed o n a n y p ar ty n otr ep re se n te d b y co u n se l u n le ss t h e su mma ry or d er is av ai la b le in an el ec tr on ic d at ab as e w h ic h is pub licly ac cessible w ithou t pa yment o f fee (such as the data base av ailable at http://w w w .ca2 .us cour ts.go v/). If no copy is served by reaso n of the availability of

the order o n s uch a d at ab as e, t h e ci ta ti on mu st in cl u d e re fere n ce t o th atd at ab as e an d t h e d oc k et n u mb er o f th e ca se in w hich the orde r w as e ntered . At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 17 day

of De cembe r, two thousand nine. th Present: J OSEPH M. McL AUGHL I N, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, GERARD E. L YNCH,

Circuit Judges
.

____________________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , - v - No. 08-5838-c r MI CHAEL

DODSON, De

fe nd an t, TROY DODSON, a lso known as ACKB AR, also known as ACK, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. *

____________________________________________________________2

F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: J OHN F. K AL EY , Doar

Rieck Ka ley

& Ma ck, New Y ork, N.Y. For Appellee : C R I S TI NA M. P O SA , Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas, Assistant United States Attorney , on the brief ), for B e n t o nJ. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Easter n District of Ne w York, B rookly n, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (Glee son, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Tr oy

Dodson appe als from a

judgme nt of conviction of the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (Glee son, J. ) sentenc ing D odson principally

to 71 months’ imprisonm ent, followinghis entry of a ple a of guilty , for possessing sto le n c re dit

c ard numbe rs in v iol atio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 10 29 (a )( 3) . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history

of this case , and the spe cification of iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. Do ds on , thro ug h c ouns e l, c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on a t se nte nc ingto i mpo se a 14-le vel “loss” e nhance ment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b) (1)( H), a rguing that the evidenc e fa ile d to de mon str ate that he po sse sse d c e rt a in s tol e n c re dit c ard numbe rs wi th t

he re qu isi te “intent to defr aud.” We r eview the sentenc e imposed by the district court for

both substantive and proc edura l rea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tates v . R attob all i , 452 F.3d 127, 131- 32 (2d Cir. 2006). “Rea sonablene ss reviewis akin to review f or abuse of discre tion, under which w e conside r whether the sentenc ing judg e excee ded the bounds of a llowable discre tion[ ,] . . . commi tted an
err or of law

in the course of exercisingdiscretion, or ma de a c lear ly err oneous findingof fa ct.”3

United States v. W

illiams , 475 F.3d 468, 474 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). In consideringthe proprie ty of a pa rticular loss enha

nceme nt, we re view the district cour t’s fa c tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or , a

nd its le g a l c on c lus ion s de novo
. United States v. Carboni , 204 F.3d 39, 46 ( 2d Cir. 2000). U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 provides f or off ense- level enha

nceme nts for ce rtain fr aud-r elated
c ri me s b a se d o n th e amou nt o f i nte nd e d lo ss i nv olv e d in the of fe ns e . “ Inte nd e d lo ss” re fe rs to “the pe cuniar

y harm that wa s intended to result fr om the offe nse,” a nd “includes intende d pecunia ry harm that would have bee n impossibl e or unlikely to occur .” Id. cmt. 3(A)( ii). Such loss “shall not be less than $500 per acc ess device ,” eve n in the absenc e of a n actua l loss. Id. cmts. 3(A)( ii), 3(F) (i). Althoug h the “district cour t’s fac tual finding s relatingto loss mus t be established by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e,” United States v. Bre nnan , 395 F.3d 59, 74 ( 2d Cir. 2005), the district court “ enjoy s considera ble discre tion in calculatingthe loss applicable to a particula r fr aud,” United States v. Canova , 412 F.3d 331, 355 ( 2d Cir. 2005). He re , w e a

re satis fi e d th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e sti mate of the int e nd e d lo ss w a s r e a so na ble and supported by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Specif

ically , the re cord indicates that Dodson knowing ly

possessed a list of stolen cr edit car d numbers, sold a portion of those numbe rs to a cooper ating witness for pr ofit with knowledg e that the number s would be used without authorization, blacked out the pa g e number s on the portion of the list give n to the cooper ating witness so as to obscure the total number of pa g es, and f ailed to ar ticulate or pr offe r any leg itimate rea son for possessingthe numbers. When viewe d toge ther, this evidenc e provide d a sufficie nt, non-speculative basis for the district c ourt to conclude that Dodson possessed a ll of the cr edit car d numbers with the re quisite intend to defra ud. Moreove r, we see no e rror in the4

district court’s c onsideration of D odson’s long history of committing identity

fra ud by soliciting ins ide rs , b e c a

us e su c h e vid e nc e is “ pr ob a tiv e of [Do ds on ’s ] int e nt i n p os se ssi ngthe ‘a c c e ss device s’ for which [he was] charg ed.” Un ite d S tates v . Ca

pu to , 808 F.2d 963, 968 ( 2d Cir. 1987). Dodson argues that the fa ct that he only provided the c ooperating witness with a por tion of the list of stolen cre dit card numbe rs “strong ly demonstrates” that he did not intend to defra ud wi th r e sp e c t to the re ma ini ngnumbe rs . We have re pe a te dly e mph a size d, ho we ve r, that “ int e nt t o defr aud” in a

n unauthorized ac cess de vice c ase ne ed not be pr oven by direc t evidence , and that circ umstantial evidence can instea d suffice
. Un ite d S tates v . G old

ste in , 442 F.3d 777, 783- 84 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ); se e als o United States v. Guadagna , 183 F.3d 122, 129 ( 2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “dire ct proof of

defe ndant’s fr audulent intent is not nece ssary”). The circ umstantial evidenc e in the re cord he re pr ovided more tha n a suff icient basis for the district court to conc lude by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that Dodson possesse d the re quisite intent to defraud,
no tw ith sta

nd inghis fa ilure to s e ll a ll o f t he numbe rs a t is su e . A c c or din g ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did
n o tcl ea rl y

err i ni mp o s i n g a 1 4 -l ev el l o s s en h an ce m en tatDo d s o n ’s s en t en ci n g. We have c onsidered a ll of Dodson’s re maining a rguments and find them to be without
m e r i t
. T hu s , f

o r th e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CATHERI

NE O' HAGANWOL FE, CL ERK By :_________________________________