[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15210

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00086-WTM-GRS-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RASHELLA REED,

DERRICK JAMEIN ROBINSON, 

a.k.a. Dred,

TORY HARDWICK,

 Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 5, 2014)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-15210 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Rachelle Reed, Derrick Robinson, and Tory Hardwick appeal their 

convictions and sentences for conspiring to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, 

and to launder money, id. § 1956(h). Reed and Robinson challenge the denial of 

their joint motion for funds to hire an investigator. Robinson also challenges the 

six-level enhancement of his base offense level to account for the number of his

victims. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (Nov.

2012). Hardwick challenges the determination of the amount of loss. We affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to review Reed and Robinson’s challenge to the denial 

of their motion for investigative funds. “The law is settled that appellate courts are 

without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.” United 

States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. 

Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980)). A magistrate judge denied Reed and

Robinson’s joint motion, and neither defendant sought review of that decision in 

the district court. We cannot review the decision of the magistrate judge.

The district court did not clearly err by enhancing Robinson’s base offense 

level by six levels to account for the large number of his victims. Robinson 

purchased, at 65 percent of face value, thousands of electronic transfer cards and 

vouchers that had been issued to children as part of the Georgia Women, Infants, 

and Children Program (WIC Program) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program. Robinson then delivered the cards and vouchers to cashiers at children’s 

Case: 13-15210 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

stores that he knew would charge the cards and redeem the vouchers using 

fraudulent transactions and would give him cash in the amount of the transactions. 

Robinson argues that the only victim of his offense is the United States Department 

of Agriculture, which administered the state benefits programs. But a victim is 

“any person who sustain[s] any part of the actual loss” of an offense. U.S.S.G. 

§ 2B1.1 cmt. n.1. As explained in the presentence investigation report adopted by 

the district court, the victims of Robinson’s fraud included the children who were 

named on the cards and vouchers as the intended beneficiaries of the programs. A 

defendant is subject to a six-level enhancement of his base offense level when an 

offense involves more than 250 victims, id. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), and Robinson does

not dispute that the conspiracy involved the acquisition and fraudulent use of more 

than 250 cards and vouchers.

Even if the district court had erred by enhancing Robinson’s sentence, the 

error would have been harmless. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–

49 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court varied downward 90 months from the low 

end of Robinson’s advisory guideline range of 235 to 293 months of imprisonment

based on the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and sentenced 

Robinson as if the enhancement did not apply. The district court stated that, even if 

it had not applied the enhancement, Robinson would have had a guideline range 

between 121 and 151 months of imprisonment, and the district court sentenced 

Case: 13-15210 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Robinson within that range to avoid any unwarranted sentencing disparities and to 

enable him to pay restitution. See id. § 3553(a)(6), (7). The enhancement did not 

affect Robinson’s sentence.

The district court also did not clearly err in determining that Hardwick was 

responsible for a monetary loss of more than $6 million. A defendant is 

accountable for the amount of loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), which is based on his 

relevant conduct and includes the losses caused by his acts and omissions and 

those caused by “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in 

furtherance of [their] jointly undertaken criminal activity,” id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), 

(B). Between November 16, 2009, and January 21, 2011, Hardwick conspired with

his father, Robinson, and numerous others to acquire and fraudulently use

electronic transfer cards and vouchers. The district court found that Hardwick 

moved from Tennessee to Georgia to live with his father; he attended a week of 

training with 50 other coconspirators to learn how the conspiracy operated among

14 stores in Georgia and how to thwart detection by law enforcement and 

regulatory officials; he was taught at A Babies Castle how to process fraudulent 

transactions as a cashier and how to notify cohorts when he needed to replenish his 

supply of cash; and he worked regularly at The Baby Spot, where he charged cards 

and redeemed vouchers in false transactions and paid cash to the coconspirators 

who delivered cards and vouchers to the store. Between 2009 and 2011, The Baby 

Case: 13-15210 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Spot processed more than 10,000 cards and vouchers, and during Hardwick’s 

tenure, the conspiracy processed fraudulent transactions that totaled $6,784,634.79. 

Although Hardwick worked solely as a cashier, the district court was entitled to

find that Hardwick knew about and reasonably should have foreseen the scope and 

magnitude of the conspiracy, see United States v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314, 1319–20 

(11th Cir. 2003), and to hold him responsible for the number of fraudulent 

transactions conducted by him and his coconspirators between November 2009 and 

January 2011, see United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071, 1081–82 (11th Cir. 

1998). Hardwick does not challenge the finding that he and his coconspirators 

caused more than $6 million in losses, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), or the order 

that held him jointly and severally responsible for paying restitution to the 

Department for its loss, see 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2); United States v. Robertson, 

493 F.3d 1322, 1333–34 (11th Cir. 2007).

We AFFIRM the convictions and sentences of Reed, Robinson, and 

Hardwick.

Case: 13-15210 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 5 of 5