FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 12 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 08 70 -FAM- 2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s SADONNA WALLACE, JAM ES ROGERS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON, an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Sad on naW al la ce an d J am es Ro ge rs ap pe al th e se nt en ces im po se d fo r th ei r co nv ic ti on s o n o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to t raff ic in or u se un au th or iz edacce ss de vi ces , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( b) (2 ), an d o ne co un t o f us e o f on e o r
m or e u naut ho riz edacce ss de vi ces with i nt en t t o d efraud , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( a)(2 ). Bo th W al la ce an d R og ers were s en te nc edto 16 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d o rd eredto joi nt ly pay a to ta l re st itut io n a m ou ntof $ 16 ,18 7.7 5 to th e IRS . On ap pe al , th ey ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t t he IRS i s th e p ro pe r res ti tu ti on pa y ee an d t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to setth e te rm s o f pa ym en t fo r res ti tu ti on . In ad di ti on , Rog ers ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to no t ap pl y

a two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . After r ev ie w, we va cat e th e o rd ers of r es ti tu ti on an d o th erwi se affi rm Ro ge rs ’s sen te nc e. The di stric t co urt o rd eredth atW al la ce an d R og ers pa y res ti tu ti onto th e IRS in th e to ta l am ou ntof $ 16 ,18 7.7 5. Bo th ap pe ll an ts an d t he Gov ern m en t ar gu e th at de si gn at io n o f th e IRS as v ic ti m was e rro r, an d we a gr ee. The re i s n o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d t o s ug ge stth atth e IRS su ffer edlo ss . The Go ve rn m en t ac kn owl ed ge s th atitm is ta ke nl y

id en ti fie d t he IRS as a po te nt ia l v ic ti m du rin g t he sen te nc in g he ari ng , whi ch ga ve ris e to th is erro r. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e th e res ti tu ti on or de rs an d re m an d s o t he di st ric t co urt m ay id en ti fy th e co rrec t v ic ti m s, p ro pe rly
2al lo cat e res ti tu ti on am ou nt s t o e ach vi ct im , andsp eci fy th e res ti tu ti on sch edul e co ns is te ntwith 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 72 (d ). * Reg ard in g t he di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Ro ge rs was n oten ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , we fin d t ha t h e in vi te d a ny erro r by sta ti ng at s en te nc in g t ha t h e m us t “ face th e co ns eque nc es th athe do es no t ge t ac cep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y .” By ackno wled gi ng th athe was n oten ti tl edto a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , Rog ers in vi te d the di st ric t co urt t o rejectth atarg um en t an d c an no t n ow cl ai m erro r. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Lo ve , 44 9 F.3 d 1 15 4, 1 15 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (pe r cu ria m) (h ol di ng th atth e d efen da ntin vi te d
an y erro r reg ard in g t he len gt h o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e whe n h e “ ex pr es sl y ackno wled ge d” th atth e co urt co ul d i m po se a te rm

of up t o fi ve y ears ). AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Be cause we va cate the re stitut ion orders on the g round that the district cour t incorre ctly * designated the IRS as a victim, we nee d not discuss the issue of the re stitut ion pay ment schedule
. 3