2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-27-2008 

# U SA v . H a wes
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3334

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . H a we s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1338. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1338P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 3334

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BRY AN J

. HA W ES a / k / a FI NA NC I AL M AN AG EM ENT ADV I S ORY SE RVI CES , I NC. a / k a /F I NAN CI AL M ANA GEM ENT S ERVI CES , I NC.

B ry an J. H aw es, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00082) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W

. A m brose

A r gued N ovember1, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L , W E IS and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.2 ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 27, 2008)

J a m e s J . B ri n k , E s q . [ ARGUE D] 428 Forbes A venue, Sui t e 220 L aw y er s B ui l di ng Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ant R ober tL

. E berhar dt , E s q. M ic h a e l L . Iv o ry, E s q . [ ARGUE D] O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge

. B ri an H aw es ap p ea ls from h is sen tenc e im p o sed af ter a pl ea of gui l t yt o t w o count s o f m ai l fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C. § 1 34 1. H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o a t e r m of 7 8 mon t hs’ im p riso n m e n t. H a w e s ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rly c a lcu late d th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e ra n g e . W e a g r e e a n d w ill vaca t e the s ent ence i m pos ed by the D istr i ctC our tand r emand forr es ent enci ng.3 I. F AC T S AN D P ROCEDURAL H I ST ORY B ri an H aw es w as a r egi s t er ed i nves t m entadvi s orand ow n e r and presi den tof tw o invest m ent advi soryservices , Fi n anci al M anage m entA dvi s or ySer vi ces ( “FM A S”) and Fi nanci al M anage m entSer vi ces , Inc

. ( “FM S”)

. I n 1997, he b e c a m e a n a u th o riz e d re p re se n tativ e o f F id e li tyIn v e stm e n ts In v e s tm e n t A d v is o rs G ro u p (“ F id e lity” ). Fr om 1988 t hr ough 2003, H aw es us ed hi s pos i t i on as an i nves t m entadvi s or t o defr aud hi s cl i ent s of m oni es t hatt heyhad entrus t ed t o hi m . H e w oul d agr ee t o pur chas e annui t i es on behal f of hi s cl i ent s , buti ns t ead w oul d kee p the m oneyfor p e rso n a l u se o r b u y th e a n n u iti e s a s in stru c ted b u t late r liq u id a te t hem for hi s ow n u se. T o co nceal h is th e f t , he creat ed fa l se acc ounts t at em ent s , i ndi cat i ng hi gheracc ountbal ance s , and subm i t t ed them t o h i s cl i ents

. In 1 9 9 8 , H a w e s p e rsu a d e d a n u m b e r o f h is c lien ts to m o v e t h e i ra s s e t s i n t o i n v e s t m e n t p r o d u c t s o f f e r e d b y F i d e l i t y. F o r th e se in v e stm e n t p ro d u c t ac c o u n ts , F id e lityw o u ld m a il ac co u n t st atem en ts atreg u lar i n terva ls directl yto a c li en t’ s res i den ce or ad dress of cho i ce. U nti l 20 02 , H aw es w ou l d als o issue stat em en ts t o h is cl ien ts th rou g h h is i n v estm en t adv isory se rvi ce, F M A S , t hat accurat el yrefl ect ed the Fidelity i nv e stm ents

. A s a fi nan ci al adv i sor, he w as aut ho ri zed to use hi s cl i ent s ’ s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber s and otheri denti fy i ng i nform at i on t o acc es s t hei rFi del i t y ac co unt s and di d s o i n t he regul ar course of bu si ness.4 B e g in n in g in 2 0 0 2 , h o w e v e r, H a w e s u se d h is a c c e ss to cl i entacc ount s w i t houthi s cl i ent s ’ perm i s s i on and cha nged the ad d resse s to w h ich h is cl ients’ F idelityac co u n t st atem en ts w ere ma i l e d

. I n s o me i n s t a n c e s , h e ma i l e d c h a n g e o f a d d r e s s f

o r ms to F id e lityIn v e stm e n ts, in d ica tin g th a t f u tu re sta tem e n ts s h o u ld be sent t o h i s office address

. In o t hers, he accessed his cl i ents ’ onl i ne ac count s and changed the addr es s es . H aw es t hen not i fi ed hi s cl i ent s t hatFi del i t yw oul d no l ongerbe i s s ui ng paper s t at ement s and th at FM A S w oul d cont i nue t o i s s ue pape r a c c o u n ts t a t e m e n t s r e f

l e c t i n g t h e i rb a l a n c e s w i t h F i d e l i t y. H a w e s th e n b e g a n to d iv e rt a n d tra n sf e r c lien t f u n d s in to a n a c c o u n t f

o r h is p e rso n a l u se . T o a v o id d isc o v e ryo f h is th e f t, h e w o u ld tr a n s f

e r f u n d s f ro m o n e c l ie n t a c c o u n t to a n o th e r. T h ro u g h F M A S , h e w o u ld th e n iss u e a n d p ro v id e sta tem e n ts to hi s cl i ent s t hat di d not r epor t t he t r ans fer s and fa l s el yover s t at ed th e v a lu e o f

th e F id e litya c c o u n ts. H a v in g e n su re d th a t h is cl i ent s w oul d notr ece i ve ac cur at e ac count s t at ement s fr om F id e lity, H a w e s w a s a b le to h id e th e f ra u d f ro m h is c lie n ts

. I n 2003, aft erhi s fath er’s death, H aw es ’ m ot her di s cover ed that he had been s t eal i ng m oneyt hathi s par ent s had e n tru ste d w ith h im f

o r in v e stm e n t a n d su b m itt in g sta tem e n ts to t hem t hat fal s el yr efl ect ed thatannui t i es had bee n pur chas ed and w ere earni ng m on ey . S he thr eat ened t o reporthis cri m e un l ess t he moneyw as r epai d , and H aw es agr eed t o r epaya t ot al of $780, 000 pur s uant t o a paym ents chedul e. I n or dert o m ake the fi r s tpaym entt o his m ot her , H aw es s t ol e $125, 000 fr om ot her c lie n ts ’ a c c o u n ts

. O n O ct ober31, 2003, H aw es ’ fr aud w as uncover ed andT h e relev an t p art o f the sen tenc ing h ea ri n g tr an script refe rs 1 t o her as “A ngel i ca C anvann. ” H ow ever , i tappea r s t hatt hi s w as a t r a ns c r i pt i on e r r or , A pp e l l a nt ’ s Br

. 13 n. 6, and bo t h the PSR and otherpor t i ons of the s ent enci ng hear i ng t r ans cr i pt s i dent i fy t he pr obat i on offi ceras A ngel i ca Bant a. 5 hi s acc ount s fr ozen. O n A pr i l 9, 2004, a tw o- counti nform at i on w as fi l ed, al l egi ng t w o count s of m ai l fr aud i n v iolat i on of 18 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . O n th a t s a m e d a te, H a w e s p lea d e d g u iltyto b o th count s . O n A u g us t4, 2004, he w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of 98 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bya thr ee- y ear p eri od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and or der ed t o pay r es t i tut i on i n t he amount of $2, 601, 961. 60. I n t he w ake of t he Supr eme Court ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U

. S. 220 ( 2005) , H aw es fi l ed a m ot i on for s um m ary r emand on M ay 3, 2004, and, on A ugus t9, 2005, t hi s C our t aff

i r m ed H aw es ’ convi ct i on and r emanded for r es ent enci ng. T he tr i al cour thel d s ent enci ng hear i ngs on J anuary30, M ar ch 29, and J une 29, 2006. A pp. 78- 417. D u ri n g the c o u rse o f th e h ea ri n g s , the D istri ct C o u rt hear d fr om A ngel i ca B ant a, t he proba t i on offi cerw ho pr epar ed H aw es ’ PSR

. She t es t i fi ed t hat , i n her opi ni on, an i dent i t yt heft

1 enhanc ement under U

. S. S. G

. § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) w as prope r b e c a u se H a w e s u se d th e so c ial s e c u rityn u m b e rs o f h is clie n ts to c h a n g e th e ir a d d re ss e s s o th a t h e w o u ld re c e iv e th e sta tem e n ts i nd i c at i ng t he real balances of t heiri nv estm ent accoun t s. O bt ai ni ng a cha ng e of a ddr es s w as r egar ded byM s . B ant a as obt ai ni ng another form of i dent i fi cat i on–hi s cl i ent s ’ m ai l –and, t her efor e, s ubj ectt o t he i dent i t y t heft enhanc ement

. C ouns el for t he governm entar gued thatt he name and addr es s w as a means6 of i dent i fi cat i on and cha ngi ng an addr es s w as p r o d uci ng another m e a n s o f

id e n tific a tio n . H a w e s te stif ied th a t h is c lien ts w i l l i ngl ypr ovi ded hi m w i t h cert ai n i nform at i on, i ncl udi ng name, addr es s , s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber , dat e of bi r t h, phone num ber, an d w er e as s i gned a uni que i dent i fi cat i on num berby t he fi nanci al i ns t i tut ion

. H e furt hert es t i fi ed thathe had di s cr et i onary contr ol overt he ac count s and pr i orauthor i zat i on to en g ag e in a n ytr an sac ti o n h e d ee m ed n e c essa ry . M o reo v er, aft erH aw es change d a cl i ent ’ s addr es s onl i ne, b y fax, orby em ai l , Fi del i tyw oul d s end a c onfi r m at i on of the cha nge of a d d re s s to th e c lie n t’ s f o rm e r a d d re s s . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ngs , t he gove rnm entpr es ent ed tes tim o n ya s to th e a p p ro p ria ten e ss o f a v u ln e ra b le v ictim se n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 A 1 .1 ( b ). C lien ts defr auded byH aw es w er e el der l y , i l l , and uns ophi s t i cat ed. A pp. 399, 403. I n par t i cul ar , t es t i m onys how ed thatH aw es di ver t ed $87, 500 fr om an account bel ongi ng t o D or ot hyM cK i nneyw ho, as he w as aw ar e, w as i n a nur s i ng hom e and s uffe red from A l zhei m er ’ s di s eas e. H e di d s o i n or dert o r epayhi s m ot herfor th e f u n d s h e h a d sto len a n d to p re v e n t h e r f ro m re p o rtin g h im to th e a u th o ri tie s . T h e D ist r i ctC our trul ed thatbychangi ng t he addr es s es of hi s cl i ent s , H aw es di d i l l egal l y us e a m eans of i dent i fi cat i on “t o pr oduce oral t erdupl i cat e means of ide nt i fi cat i on” and ap p li ed a tw o -l ev el en h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 (b )(9 )(C )(i). T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso a p p lied a v u ln e ra b le vi ct i m enhanc ementunderU

. S. S. G

. § 3A 1. 1( b) u p o n fi ndi ng t hats om e of t he vi ct i m s w er e per s ons w i t h w hom H aw es had a cl os e r el at i ons hi p and other s w er e r et i r ed, el der l yand s uffe r i ng7 f ro m A lzh e im e r’s . T h e c a lcu late d G u id e lin e R a n g e w a s 7 0 to 8 7 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. H aw es w as ul t i m at el ysent en c e d t o 7 8 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bya thr ee- y earper i od of s upervi s ed re lea se , an d o rd e re d to p a y$ 2 ,2 7 6 ,5 6 5 .3 1 in re stitu tio n to h is vi ct i m s . H aw es t i m el yappea l ed hi s s ent ence .

II. D I SC US SI ON H aw es r ai s es a num ber of obj ect i ons t o hi s s ent ence : ( 1) th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rro n e o u slya p p lied a tw o -le v e l “id e n tity th e f t” e n h a n c e m e n t to h is B a s e O f f e n s e L e v e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) ( i) ; ( 2 ) th at th e D istri ct C o u rterro n eo u slyap p li ed a t w o-l evel “vulner able vi ct i m ” enh ance m ent t o h i s B ase O f f e n se L e v e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 A 1 .1 (b )(1 ); (3 ) th a t h is s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e; and (4) t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not cons i dert he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U

. S. C

. § 3663 i n det erm i ni ng th e a m o u n t o f

re s titu tio n . We w i l l c o n s i d e r e a c h o f t h e s e a r g u m e n t s i n tu r n . We r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he G ui del i nes t o t he f a c ts f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 327- 28 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. T o t he ext entt hatH aw es ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tm ade a l egal err ori n i t s i nt erpr et at i on of th e G u id e lin e s , w e c o n d u c t p le n a ry re v ie w . See U ni t ed Stat es v . Ne ws o me , 4 3 9 F

. 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Moor er , 383 F. 3d 164, 167 ( 3d C i r. 2 004)

. A s t o cont ent i ons t hat H aw es di d not pr es erve i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t , w e us e t heT hi s ci t at i on i s t o t he 2002 edi t i on of t he Feder al Sent enci ng 2 G ui del i nes M anu al , w hi ch w as us ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand pr obat i on offi ce i n s ent enci ng H aw es ; this s ect i on i s now at U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 B 1

. 1 (b)(1 0 )(C )(i ). 8 m o re e x a c tin g p la in e rr o r s ta n d a rd

. See U ni t ed States v. Mer l i no , 3 4 9 F

. 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 6 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). A . The I de nt i t y T he f

t Enhanc e m e nt H aw es cont ends t hathi s conducti n conce al i ng hi s fr aud d o e s n o t q u a lif

yf o r a tw o -l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1

. 1 (b)(9 )(C )(i ). T o d eterm ine w h e th er the D istri ct C o u rt er r e d i n i n t e rp r e t i n g t h e i d e n t i tyt h e f te n h a n c e me n tt o i n c l ude H aw es ’ changi ng of hi s cl i ent s ’ addr es s es , w e begi n byl ooki ng t o t h e language of the G ui del i ne and the s t atut or yl anguage re f e re n c e d th e re in

. U ndert he G ui deli nes , a tw o- l evel enhanc ementt o a defe nd ant ’ s Bas e O ff

e ns e L evel i s approp ri at e w here the o ffen se i nvol ved “the u n au thor i zed tr ans ferorus e of a nym eans of i dent i fi cat i on unl aw ful l yt o pr oduce or obt ai n anyot herm eans of i dent i fi cat i on. ” U

. S. S. G

. § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) ( i )

. T he 2 G ui del i ne r efe r s t o 18 U

. S. C

. § 1028( d) ( 4) ( now codi fi ed at18 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 (d )(7 )), w h ich p ro v id e s th a t:
t he t erm “means of i dent i fi cat i on” means anyname or n um ber that m aybe u sed, al on e or i n co njunct i on w i th a n y o th e r i n f

o rm a tio n , to id e n tify a sp e c if ic in d iv id u a l, inclu d ing an y --T h e C o m m e n tar yto U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 p ro v id e s th a t: 3

“‘ M eans of i dent i fi cat i on’ has t he m eani ng gi ven t hat t erm i n 18 U .S .C . 1 0 2 8 (d )(4 ), ex c e p t th a t su c h m e a n s o f id e n tifi ca tio n sh a ll be of a n actual ( i

. e. , notfi ct i t i ous ) i ndi vi dual , o ther t han the d e f e n d a n t o r p e rso n f

o r w h o s e c o n d u c t th e d e f e n d a n t is a c c o u n tab le” u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 . T h is is n o t at iss u e in th is cas e as the m eans of i dent i fi cat i on us ed w er e of a ctual i nd i vidual s, H aw es’ cl i ents

. 9 ( A ) name, s oci al s ecur i tynum ber , dat e of bi r t h, offici al St at e orgovernm enti s s ued dr i ver’ s l i cens e or iden ti fica ti o n n u m b er , ali en reg istrati o n n u m b er, governm entpas s por t number , empl oy erort axpay er iden ti fica ti o n n u m b er; ( B ) uni que bi om etr i c dat a, s uch as fi n gerpr i nt , voi ce pr i nt , r et i na ori r i s i m age, orot heruni q u e phy s i cal r epr es ent at i on; ( C ) uni que el ectr oni c i dent i fi cat i on num ber , addr es s , or r out i ng code; or (D ) t el ecom m un i cat i on i den t i fy i ng i nfo rm at i on or access d ev ice (as d ef

ined in se cti o n 1 0 2 9 (e)) 3
H a w e s co n ten d s tha t “ th e a c t o f c h a n g in g a p e rso n ’s a d d re ss is notengagi ng i n t he ‘una ut hor i zed t r ans fer or us e of anym eans of i dent i fi cat i on unl aw ful l yt o al t erordupl i cat e oras s embl e [a n] al t e r n a t e h yb r i d me a n s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ’ o r u s i n g a means of i dent i fi cat i on t o ‘ pr oduce a n al t er ed dupl i cat e means ofS e e , e .g ., U n itedS ta tes v . L

y le , 0 6

- 1 6 5 7 4 , 2 0 0 7 WL 4 2344873, *2- 3 ( 11t h C i r . A ug. 17, 2007) ( defe ndant ’ s “conduc t i s notm eaning ful l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t hatdes cr i bed i n t he A p p li ca ti o n N o tes”); U n itedS ta tes v . A u g u ste , 392 F. 3d 1266, 1268 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( l o o k i n g f i r s t t o a p p l i c a t i o n n o t e s and th e n to th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e g u id e lin e ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. 10 i dent i fi cat i on. ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 21 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Ne ws o me , 4 3 9 F

. 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 -86 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 )). W e b e g i n b ya s k i n g wh e t h e r t h e s t a tu t e ’ s p l a i n t e r ms add ress th e preci se quest i on of w hetherchan ging an a dd res s cons t i tut es produc i ng orobt ai ni ng “anyot herm eans of id e n tific a tio n .” A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it h a s o b s e rv e d , “ th e e n h a n c e m e n t is ra th e r a w k w a rd ly w ri tte n .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mel endr ez , 3 8 9 F

. 3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). “M eans of i dent i fi cat i on” i s defi ned bot h i n gener al t erm s as “anyname ornum bert hat m ay be used, al one or i n conj unct i on w i t h anyot heri nform at i on, t o i dent i fy a s peci fi c i ndi vi dual ” and i n s peci fi c t erm s as an e xt ens i ve l i s tof part i cul arm eans of id e n tific a tio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 (d )(7 ). T h e tex t, ho w e v e r, is a m b ig u o u s a s to w h e th e r c h a n g in g a n a d d re ss f a lls w ith in its ambi t

. W hat i s cl ear i s t hat t he s t atut e does noti ncl ude mai l or an addr es s w i t hi n t he l i s tof m eans of i dent i fi cat i on; norar e the exam ples easi l yanalogi zed to a piece of m ai l or an ad dress

. F a c e d w ith a m b ig u iti e s in th e id enti tyth e f t en h a n c e m e n t, c o u rts h a v e lo o k e d to th e a p p lica tio n n o tes , w h ich se t f o rth exampl es of the types of conduct to w hi ch the i dent i fi cat i on en h an ce m en t app li es o r do es n o t ap p ly

. A cc o rdin g ly , w e turn 4Mel endr ez , 3 8 9 F .3 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (lo o k in g to appl i cat i on not es and r eas oni ng t hat“[n] ei t hers etof exa m pl es p e rf e c tlym a tch e s M e len d re z ’s c rim e , b u t w e c o n c lu d e th a t h is a c tio n s a re m o re lik e th o s e in th e f ir s t s e t o f

e x a m p le s .” ). 11 t o t hem for gui dance

. T he appl i cat i on not es pr ovi de: (i ) In G eneral

. -- S ub sect i on (b) (10)( C )( i ) appl i es i n a case i n w hi ch a m eans of i dent i fi cat i on of an i ndi vi dual ot her t han the def

endant( ora per son forw hos e conduc tt he d ef en d an t i s ac co u n table u n d er 1

. 3 (R elev an t C o n d u ct)) is u se d w ith o u t th a t in d iv id u a l’s autho ri zatio n u n law f u lly t o pr oduce orobt ai n anotherm eans of i dent i fi cat i on. ( i i ) E xampl es . - - E xampl es o f c o n d u c tt o whi ch s ubs ect i on (b) (10)( C )( i ) appl i es ar e as foll ow s: ( I ) A defe ndantobt ai ns an i ndi vi dual ’ s name and s oci al s ecur i t ynum berfr om a s our ce ( e. g. , fr om a p iece o f m ail take n fro m the in d iv id u al’s m ai l box) and obt ai ns a bank l oan i n that i ndi vi dual ’ s nam e. I n t hi s exampl e, t he ac count num berof the bank l oan i s t he otherm eans of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a th a s b e e n o b t a i n e d u n l a w f u l l y. ( I I ) A defe ndantobt ai ns an i ndi vi dual ’ s name and ad d ress f

rom a so u rce (e.g., fro m a d ri v er’s l i cense i n a st olen w al l et ) and app l i es for, ob t ai ns, and s ubs equent l yus es a cr ed i tcar d i n t hat in d iv id u a l’s n a m e . In th is e x a m p le, th e c re d it12 car d is the ot herm eans of i dent i fi cat i on t hathas b e e n o b t a i n e d u n l a w f

u l l y. ( i i i ) N o n a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f S ubs ect i o n ( b) ( 10) ( C ) ( i )

. - - E xampl es of conduc t t o w hi ch s ubs ect i on (b) (10)( C )( i ) does no tapp l yare as foll ow s: ( I ) A defe ndant us es a cr edi t car d fr om a sto le n w a l l e to n l yt o ma k e a p u r c h a s e . I n s u c h a c a s e, the de fe n d an t h as no t u sed the st o len cre d it c a rd t o obt ai n anotherm eans of i dent i fi cat i on. (II ) A d ef

en d an t fo rge s an o ther ind ividu al’s s i gnatur e t o cas h a s t ol en che ck. For gi ng another i ndi vi d ual ’ s s i gnatur e i s notpr oduci ng another m eans of i dent i fi cat i on. A ppl i cat i on N ot e 9( C ) t o U

. S. S. G

. § 2B 1. 1. M os t , i f n o t a l l , c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e i d e n t i t yt heft enhanc ementhave f

actual s ce n ar i os t hatar e expl i ci t l yl ai d out in th e a p p lic a tio n n o te s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Tow ns end , 67 Fed. A ppx. 986, 987 ( 8t h C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hat defe ndant ’ s us e of a n o th e r’s in f

o rm a tio n to a p p ly f

o r a cre d it c a rd w a s se t f o rth in c o m m e n t 7 ( C )(ii)); U

n itedS ta tes v . G e e slin , N o. 05- 60616, 2 0 0 7 W L 7 5 6 4 5 7 (5th C ir

. M ar. 9, 20 0 7 ) (ob serv ing that “[ i] n t he t ypi cal § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 10) ( C ) ( i ) cas e, a courtw i l l i m pos e the e n h a n c e m e n t b e c a u se a d e f e n d a n t u se d f

a lse id e n tific a tio n to se c u re a b a n k lo a n ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. E delm ann , 192 Fed. A ppx. 578, 582 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat“the appl icati on not es t o t he gui del i n es cl ear l yencompas s a s i tuat i on l i ke13 E del m ann’ s , w her e an o theri ndi vi dual ’ s name and Soci al Secur i t ynum berar e unl aw full y us ed t o obt ai n cr edi t

. . . . [T]he us e of a name ot hert han the vi ct i m ’ s on an unl aw ful l yobt ai ned acc ountdoes notm i t i gat e t h e h arm caus ed byt he us e of

‘ s om eone’ s i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on t o es t abl i s h new cr edi t

. ’ ”) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C age , 134 Fed. A ppx. 833, 83 7 (6t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( “C age u sed her po si t i on t o g at her nam es, dates of b i rth, and soci al securi t y nu m bers t o ob t ai n credi tcards, l oans , and bank a ccount s . T hes e fa ct s . . . m i r r or the exa m pl es l i s t ed i n t he appl i cat i on not es . ”)

. Si m i l ar l y , i n cas es w her e the exampl es i n t he appl i cat i on not es ar e notdi r ect l yon poi nt , t he fac t s ar e m uch m or e cl os el y anal ogous t o t he exampl es t han the f a c ts w e h a v e h e re . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam et , 200 Fed. A p p x . 1 5 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). N ei t herw e nor anyot hercour thas hel d t hatchangi ng an addr es s cons t i tut es obt ai ni ng orpr oduci ng a new m eans of i dent i fi cat i on. Indee d, i n U n itedS ta tes v . A u g u ste , w h ere d ef en d an t had ad d ed h erse lf to a n o ther p erso n ’s cred itca rd acc oun t as a s econda r ycar dhol derand had c hanged the acc ount ’ s addr es s i n or dert o r ece i ve the s econda r ycar d, t he enh ancem ent appl i ed n ot because she h ad ch ang ed t he ad dress butbeca us e s he had take n an ac countnum berand adde d her ow n name t o i t , t her eby cr eat i ng a new m eans of i dent i fi cat i on. 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 7 -6 8 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T here i s a pauc i ty o f c ase l aw i n thi s C i rcui tor others, l ar gel ybeca us e t hi s s ent enci ng enhanc ementw as onl yenac t ed in 2 0 0 0

. U

nited S tates v. C isse , 1 0 3 F ed

. A p p x . 2 7 (7th C ir

. 2004) ( not i ng t hat“S ec ti o n 2B 1. 1( b) ( C ) ( i ) w as added t o t he G ui del i nes i n N ovem b er 2000, and w e have found onl yone14 publ i s hed ca s e [ Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 5 5 F .3 d 8 9 3 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )] d is c u s s in g its a p p lic a tio n ” ). W e h a v e iss u e d o n lyo n e d e c isio n in te r p r e tin g th is G u id e lin e , Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ne ws o me , 4 3 9 F

. 3 d 1 8 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ), w h ich b o th parti es cit e an d u p o n w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt r el i ed t o concl ude that t he enhanc ementappl i ed. I n Ne ws o me , defe ndant s obt ai ned per s onal cont actand ac counti nform at i on of Fl eetB ank cust om er s and used i tt o pr oduce dr i ver s ’ l i cens es wi t h p h o t o g r a p h s o f

d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e v i c t i ms ’ i n f o r mat i on, w h ic h th e y th e n u s e d to w ith d ra w f u n d s f ro m th e a c c o u n ts

. I

d. at 183. T he di s t r i ct cour t hel d t hat “N ew s om e had i l l egal l yus ed one means of i dent i fi cat i on t o pr oduce another , ” and w e agr eed th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s p ro p e rl ya llo w e d

. I d. at184. T he fraud v i ct i m ’s i nfo rm at i o n– nam e, birt h d at e, dri ver’ s l i cense num ber , and empl oy ee i dent i fi cat i o n n u m ber–w as a means of id e n tif ic a tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 (d )( 7 ). I d. T he ques t i on w as w hethert he i nform at i on on the new dr i ver s ’ l i cens es c o n s t i tu t e d “ a n yo t he r me a n s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ” Ne ws o me ar gued thatw hathe di d w as us e an e xi s t i ng m ean s of i dent i fi cat i on t o obt ai n cas h, nott o obt ai n a ne w m eans of i dent i fi cat i on, l i ke a s oci al s ecur i t ynum berora l oan ac count n u m b e r. W e d is a g re e d , re a s o n in g th a t U

. S

. S

. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) can be re ad as r equi r i ng t he enha ncementfor “the unauthor i zed tr ans feror us e of anym eans of i dent i fi cat i on u n law f u llyto a lter o r d u p lica te o r a ss e m b le a n ya ltern a te h yb rid m eans of i dent i fi cat i on. ” I d. at185. Ne ws o me , ho w ever, i s not veryhelpful t o o u r ana l y si s, b o th b ec au se th e m ea n s o f id en ti fica ti o n p rod u ce d , a d ri v e r’s l i cens e, i s s peci fi cal l ym ent ion ed in the comm ent aryt o t he15 G ui del i ne and be caus e i t i nvol ved the s or tof “br eedi ng” of m e a n s o f id e n tif

ic a tio n th a t is ta rg e te d b yth e e n h a n c e m e n t. Id

. at18 6 ; s ee C om m ent aryt o U

. S. S. G

. § 2B 1. 1, B ackgr ound ( not i ng t hatt he enha ncemen t“foc us es pr i nci pal l yon an a g g ra v a ted f

o rm o f id e n tity th e f

t k n o w n a s ‘a f

f irm a tiv e id e n tity thef t’ o r ‘bree d ing ’). N eith er o n e’s m ail n o r ad d ress a re s peci fi cal l ym ent i oned i n t he G ui del i nes nor i s H aw es ’ conduct e a s ily c a te g o ri z e d a s b re e d in g m e a n s o f id e n tif ic a tio n . W e bel i eve that , i n l i ght of t he l anguage of the G ui del i ne and the exa m pl es i n t he appl i cat i on not es , H aw es ’ conductdoes notq ual i fyfort he i dent i t yt heftenhanc ement

. A n addr es s or pi ece of m ai l does not s eem t o fi t t he G ui del i ne’ s defi ni t i on of “means of i dent i fi cat i on. ” T he governm ents ugges t s t hatt he g e n e r a l d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ me a n s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ” i n c l u d e s a n a me p l u s a n yo t h e rp i e c e o f i n f o r ma t i o n a n d t h us i nc l ud e s a n a me p lu s a n a d d re ss . T o tak e th e g o v e r n m e n t’s a rg u m e n t to its lo g ica l co n c lu sio n , a n a m e p lu s s h o e siz e o r h a ir c o lo r c o u ld cons t i tut e a means of i dent i fi cat i on. W e bel i eve t hatt he s t atut e, as t h e l a n g u a g e s u g g e s t s , r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e me ans of id e n tif ic a tio n b e s p e c if

ic o r u n iq u e . T h e e x am p les en u m era ted in 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 2 8 (d)(7 ) are of uni que i dent i fy ing i nform at i on, pr i m ar i l ynum ber s . A s t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it h a s re a so n e d , “[ b ]o th t he stat ut e and the N ot e foc us on t he gene r at i on of a uni que id e n tify in g n u m b e r d if

f e re n t th a n a n yn u m b e r u se d to o b tain it, noton w hethera documentw oul d be pr offe r ed as a form of i dent i fi cat i on. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sam et , 200 Fed. A ppx. 15, 23 ( 2d C i r . 2006)

. Si m i l ar l y , w hen addr es s i ng t he ar gum en tt hat bank ac count s ar e notm eans of iden ti fi cat i on, t he C our tof16 A p p eal s fort he Ei ght h C i r cui tfound i tdet erm i nat i ve that“a b a n k a c c o u n t n u m b e r is a u n iq u e id e n tif ic a tio n n u m b e r.” U n ited S ta tes v . Sc o tt , 448 F. 3d 1040 ( 8t h C i r . 2006)

. A s oci al s ecur i t ynum ber , acc ountnum ber , or any of the otherexampl es p ro v id e d w ith in th e sta tu te id e n tifyo n e p a rticu lar in d iv id u a l. Ats e n t e n c i n g , t h e g o v e r n me n ta l s o a r g u e d t h a tt h e n a me and addr es s w as a means of i dent i fi cat i on becaus e i tw as “the w a y t h a t Fi d e l i t y i d e n t i f i e d c l i e n t s i n t h i s c a s e . ” App. 381. Fr o m a c o mmon s e n s e s t a n d p o i n t , we f i n d t h i s a r g u ment diffi cultt o acce pt. F i nan ci al i nst i tuti on s i den t i fyt heircl i ents , n o t by n a m e o r ad d ress (w h ich c an b e n o n -un iqu e ide n ti fiers), butr atherbyacc ountnum ber

. A s H aw es t es t i fi ed, Fi del i t yw as gi ven ce r t ai n i nform at i on aboutcl i ent s t o s et up an ac countand “[t ] he w ayFi del i t yi dent ifi ed a cl i entaft ert hatw as byt he a c c o u n t n u m b e r.” A p p . 3 8 4

. T h e A p p lica tio n N o te e x a m p les a re sim ilarlyc o n f in e d to a comm on s ens e meani ng of i d en ti t yt heftt hr ough br eedi ng a new m eans of i dent i fi ca ti on. T he exa m pl es of w hen the en h an ce m en t app li es in v o lve th e p rod u cti o n o f a sp ec ifi c f o rm of i de n t i f

y i n g i n f o r ma t i o n , whi c h i s t h e n u s e d f o ri mpr o p er p u rpo ses, i

. e., takin g an o ther’s ide n ti ty to u se a s o n e’s o w n . In t he fi r s texampl e, the defendantus es t he vi ct i m ’ s name and s oci al s ecur i t ynum bert o obtai n a b ank l oan, t he “means of i dent i fi cat i on” br ed. I n t he s econd exampl e, t he def endantus es th e v ic tim ’s n a m e a n d a d d re ss to a p p lyf o r a n d o b tain a c re d it c a rd , a n o th e r un iq u e “ m e a n s o f id e n tific a tio n .” B yc o n tra st, in t he exa m pl es of w hen the enha ncementdo es n o t a ppl y , t he defe n d an thas notgener at ed anyaddi t i onal i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on or engage d i n t he “br eedi ng” t ar get ed byt he17 e n h a n c e m e n t. C hangi ng an addr es s i s noteas i l yanal ogous t o t he e x a m p les in th e a p p lica tio n n o tes . In c o m p a riso n to th e f a c ts in ot hercas es , H aw es ’ conducts eems c l os ert o t he A ppl i cat i on N o te’ s e x a m p les o f

c o n d u c t th a t d o e s n o t co n stitu te id e n tity t heft , s uch as s t eal i ng an exi s t i ng cr edi tcar d orcas hi ng a che ck f ro m a n e x is tin g b a n k a c c o u n t. D isc u ss in g th e se e x a m p les in th e a p p lica tio n n o tes , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e S ix th C irc u it obs erved t hat “w hi l e t he us e of s om eone’ s cr edi t car d t o m ake a p u r c h a se is a p u n ish a b le o f f e n se , the n a tu re o f

th e h a rm is d iffe ren t from that w h ic h re su lt s fro m u sing so m eo n e’s i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on t o es t abl i s h new cr edi t

. ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 355 F. 3d 893, 900 ( 6th C i r . 2003)

. L ikew i s e, a lth o u g h ste a lin g f

ro m c lien t ac c o u n ts h e w a s a u th o riz e d to m anage i s des ervi ng of puni s hm ent , t he harm caus ed byH aw es w as nott he br eedi ng of new i dent i fi cat i on i nform ati on or ru n n in g u p n e w c re d it, b u t ra th e r th e th e f t o f f u n d s e n tru ste d to hi m . T he cha nge of a ddr es s w as t o t hw ar t t he di s coveryof, not e n a b l e , t h e i l l i c i ta c t i v i t y. A s t he for egoi ng di s cus s i on m akes cl ear , t he G ui del i ne, r efe r ence d s t atut e, and appl i cat i on notes d o notl ead t o t he c o n c lu sio n th a t th e id e n tityth e f t en h a n c e m e n t w a s m e a n t to app l yt o a ch ang e of a dd res s. T hi s concl us i on i s bol s t er ed by t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof t he I dent i t y T heft and A s s um pt i on D et err ence A ct of 1998, Pub.B eca us e the s t atut or ym eani ng is unc l ear , t he l egi s l at i ve 5 hi s t or y ca n ai d us i n di s cerni ng t he G ui del i ne’ s purpos e and in te rp re tin g it a p p ro p ri a te ly. S e e P a tterso n v . Sh u m a te , 50 4 U. S. 7 5 3 , 7 6 1 (1 9 9 2 ) (s tatin g th a t re so rt to sta tu to ryh isto ryis appr opr i at e w her e l anguage of s t atut e i s ambi guous or c o n f u sin g ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. P ol l en , 9 7 8 F

. 2 d 7 8 , 8 5 (3d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). 18 L

. N o. 105- 318, 112 St at

. 3007 ( 1998) ( “I T A D A ”)

. T he 5 IT A D A w a s e n a c ted to m a k e “ f ra u d in c o n n e c tio n w ith i dent i fi cat i on i nf

or m at i on [n o t just id en ti fica ti o n d o cu m en ts] a cr i m e. ” S. R ep. N o. 105- 274, at5 ( 1998) ( “Today , cr i m i nal s do notnece s s ar i l yneed a documentt o as s um e an i dent i ty ; oft en th e y ju s t n e e d th e in f

o rm a tio n its e lf to f

a c ilita te . . . c ri m e s . . .

. [T]hi s s t atut e ca n keep pa ce w i t h crimi nal s ’ t echnol ogi cal a d v a n c e s.” ). T h e IT A D A p ro v id e d th a t a lt h o u g h “ th e re e x ists no cl eardefi ni t i on of i dent i t yfr aud, ” i tt ypi cal l y“i nvol ves ‘s te a li n g ’ a n o th e r p e rs o n ’s p e rs o n a l id e n tif y in g in f o rm a tio n . .

. t o frau d u l ent l yes t abl i s h cr edi t , run up debt , ort o t ake ove r exi s t i ng fi nanci al acc ount s . ” Id

. at7. I n enac t i ng t he I T A D A , t he Sent enci ng C o m m is s i on ex p lai n ed that su b sec ti o n (b)(1 0 )(C ): f o c u se s p rin c ip a llyo n a n a g g ra v a ted f o rm o f id e n tity t heftknow n as “af

fi r m at i ve i dent i t yt heft ” or“br eedi ng”, i n w hi ch a d ef

endantus es anotheri ndi vi dual ’ s name, s oci al s ecur i t y n u m ber , ors om e otherform of i dent i fi cat i on ( t he “m eans of i dent i fi cat i on”) t o “br eed” ( i

. e. , pr oduce orobt ai n) new oraddi t i onal form s of19 i dent i fi cat i on. C o m m e n tar y to U .S .S .G

. § 2 B 1 .1 , B a c k g ro u n d

. A s w e sa id in Ne ws o me , “C ongr es s w ant ed t o pr ovi de inc r eas ed puni s hm ent f o r id e n tity th e f

t th a t in v o lv e d c re a tio n o f m e a n s o f c o u n ter f e it i dent i fi cat i on r athert han the pl ai n vani l l a type of i dent i t yt heft th a t o c c u rs w h e n p e rso n A ste a ls a n d u se s p e rso n B ’s c re d it car d.

. . . T hi s m ul t i pl i cat i on of m eans of i dent i fi cat i on i s t he type of i dent i t yt heftt hatC ongr es s bel i eved de s erved gr eat er p u n ishment

. ” Ne ws o me , 4 3 9 F. 3 d a t 1 8 6

. As o t h e r c o u r t s of appea l s have obs erved, “[t ] he ‘ natur e of the harm ’ m eantt o be t ar get ed byt hi s enhanc ementi s , i n par t , ‘ t hatw hi ch r es ul t s fr om us i ng so m eone’ s i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on t o es t abl i s h new cre d it

. ’” U

ni t ed Stat es v. O at es , 4 2 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 0 (8th C ir

. 2005) ( quot i ng Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 355 F

. 3 d 893, 900 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )). G i ven the purpos e of the enha ncement , w e w i l l notr ead t he G ui del i ne t o appl yt o H aw es ’ conducti n chan g i ng t he addr es s es on his c li ent s ’ acc ounts t at ement s l es tw e pr oduce abs ur d oruni nt ended r es ul t s “demonstr abl yatod d s w i t h t he i nt ent i ons of [the s t atut e’ s ] d raft er s . ” G riffin v . O c e a n ic C ontr act ors , I

nc . , 4 58 U

. S. 564, 571 ( 1982)

. H er e, H aw es m isu se d h is clie n ts’ ac c o u n ts an d a b u se d th e ir tru st. H e d id n o t, how ever , establ i s h new cr edi tor“br eed” new form s of i dent i fi cat i on, as cont empl at ed by C ongr es s and the Sent enci ng C om m i s sion i n enac t i ng t hi s enhanc ement

. H aw es ’ conduct d o e s n o tq u a l i f

yf o rt h e t wo - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tu n d e rU. S

. S

. G. § 2 B 1

. 1 (b)(9 )(C )(i ). W e the ref o re f ind that the D istri ct C o u rt e rr e d in im p o s in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t.A l t hough t he err orati s s ue i n L an gford c o n c e r ned a 6 m i s cal cul at i on o f t he cr i m i nal hi s t or yl evel r athert han the offe ns e l evel , t her e i s n o rea son t o t r eatone type of m is c alcu lat ion o f th e G u idelines d iffe ren tl yfro m an o ther. R egar dl es s of the natur e of t he err or , i t m ay aff ectt he G ui del i ne r ange c hos en and the s ent ence ul t i m at el yi m pos ed. 20 B. H arml e s s Err or A nal ys i s and G ui de l i ne C al cul at i on T he governm entur ges us t o hol d t h at th e er r oneous appl i cat i on of the i dent i t y t heft enhanc ement t o t he ca l cul at i on of H aw es ’ G ui del i nes R ange w as harm l es s . O urr ece ntdeci s i on i n U nited St ates v. L a ng

f ord , 5 1 6 F

. 3 d 2 0 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ), con t rol s our analy si s of t his i ssue. F or us t o u p h o l d H aw es’ 6 s ent ence , “i tm us tbe cl eart hatt he err ordi d n o t affectt he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e le c tio n o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d .” I d. at215. A s the p ar t ydefe ndi ng t he s ent ence i m pos ed, t he governm ent bear s t he bur den of “ per s uad[i ng] t he courtof appe al s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence abs entt he err oneous fac t or . ” W

i l l i am s v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 503 U

. S. 193, 203 (1 9 9 2 ). I n t he pr es entcas e, bas ed on the i d ent i t yt heft enh a nc e ment , t he D i s t r i c tCour tc a l c ul a t e d the t ot a l of fense l evel t o be 27, i ns t ead of 25, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i ne R ange of 70 to 8 7 m o nt hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , r athert han 57 t o 71 m ont hs

. T he C our tacknow l edged thatt he advi so ryG ui del i ne r ange of 70 t o 87 m ont hs w as t he s t ar t i ng poi ntforanys ent ence s he w oul d i m pose. T he j udge i ndi cat ed herbel i ef that“aI n L an gford , w e not ed the pos s i bi l i t y that, b ased on a 7 m isc a lcu latio n , a D ist r ic t C o u rt m ig h t co m p a re a d e f e n d a n t to o th e rs w h o a c tu a lly h a v e h ig h e r o f f e n se lev e ls. T h a t p o ss ib ili ty beca m e a r eal i t yher e, as t he D i s t r i ct C o ur ti ndi cat ed thatt he s ent ence s h e i m pos ed avoi ded “i m pos [i ng] a s ent ence t hat w oul d r es ul ti n di s par it ies among ot herpeopl e w ho have engage d i n l i ke conduct

. ” H ow ever , gi ven t he pr oper r ange, t he s ent ence s he i m pos ed r es ul t ed i n t he di s par i t y s he w as s eeki ng t o avoi d. 21 se n ten c e w ith in th e a d v iso ry g u id e lin e ra n g e d o e s a p p ro p ria tely conce r n and addr es s al l of the conc erns of s ent enci ng” and s t at ed her i nt ent i on t o “s ent ence w i t hi n t hat r ange. ” A pp. 411. O n the b asis o f it s ev alua ti o n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, th e C o u rt t hen i m pos ed a s ent ence of 76 m ont hs i n t he mi ddl e t o l ow end of the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange i thad ca l cul at ed. 7
T he gover nm enthas notm eti t s bur den of s how i ng t hat t he err orw as harm l es s . I ti s by no m eans “unambi guous ” that Hawe s ’ s e n t e n c e wou l d b e t h e s a me r e g a r d l e s s o f whe t h e rt he id e n tity th e f

t en h a n c e m e n t a p p lie d

. See L an gford , 516 F. 3d at 2 1 7

. Itis cl ea r f

ro m the re co rd th at th e se n tenc ing co u rt i nt ended t o and di d i n fac t sel ectH aw es ’ s ent ence fr om t he cal cul at ed r ange. H aw es ’ s ent ence w as i n t he m i d- t o l ow - poi nt of the cal cul at ed r ange. B eca us e the enha ncementw as err oneous l yappl i ed, t he C our t i m pos ed a s ent ence out s i de the proper G uidel i ne rang e of 57 t o 71 m on t hs. In order t o im po se a 7 6 -m o n th se n tenc e, th e C o u rtw o u ld h av e h ad to d ep art upw ar d fr om t he G ui del i nes , rea soni ng t hr ough t he § 3553( a) fa ctors a n d ex p lai n ing w h y the de fe n d an t m erit ed a g rea ter t erm22 of im pri sonm ent than t hat cont em plat ed b yt he G uidel i nes. H er e, bycontr as t , t he C our tm ade c l eart hata w i t hi n- G ui del i nes r ange w as appr opr i at e forH aw es bas ed on i t s § 3553( a) a n a lysis

. T he mi s cal cul at i on of the G ui del i ne r ange byt he D i s t r i ct C our tal s o aff

ect ed the arg u m ent s t hatt he part i es m ade a t s ent enci ng. A ft ert he C our tdeci ded that t he enha ncement w ou l d apply and t he r ang e w ou l d be 70 t o 87 m o n th s, d e f ense cou ns e l a r gu e d f

ora s e nt e nc e a tt he bo t t om of t he G ui de l i nes, t hati s , a 70-mont h s ent ence . U ndert he corr ectr ange, couns el w oul d have ur ged t he C our t t o i m pos e a 57- m ont h sen tence i ns t ead. B e c a u se th e e rro r w a s n o t h a rm les s, w e w ill re m a n d to t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof the for egoi ng. C . H aw es ’ rem ai ni ng obje ct i ons t o hi s s ent ence B ecause w e w i l l rem and for r esent encin g , w e m ust addr es s t he other err or s t hat H aw es al l eges w er e comm i t t ed by th e D is tr ic t C o u rt in c a lc u la tin g h is G u id e lin e ra n g e .

1. V ul ne r abl e vi c t i m e nhanc e m e nt H aw es chall eng es t he D i stri ct C ou rt ’s decis i on t o im po se a tw o- l evel enhanc ement underU

. S. S. G

. § 3A 1. 1( b) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des fors uch enha nceme n t “ [i ] f the def endantknew or sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t a v ictim o f th e o f f e n se w a s a v u ln e ra b le vict i m . . . . ” A vu l nerabl e vict i m “m eans a p ers on (A ) w ho i s a vi ct i m of t he offe ns e of convi ct i on and any conduct forw h i ch23 the d ef en d an t i s ac co u n table u n d er § 1 B 1

. 3 (R elev an t C o n d u ct); and ( B ) w ho i s unus ual l yvul ner abl e d u e t o age, phy s i cal or m e n tal c o n d iti o n , o r w h o is o th e rw ise p a rticu lar lysu sc e p tib le to t h e c r i mi n a l c o n d u c t

. ” U. S. S. G. § 3 A1. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , App l i c at i on N o te 2

. H a w e s a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a il e d to c o m p ly w i t h ourdeci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. I

annone , 184 F. 3d 214 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. I n I

annone , w e se t f

o rth a th re e -f

a c to r te st to det erm i ne w hetherconduct m erit s t he appl i cat i on of the v u ln e ra b le v ictim e n h a n c e m e n t: (1 ) th e v ictim w a s p a rticu lar ly su sc e p tib le o r v u ln e ra b le to th e c rim in a l c o n d u c t; (2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t k n e w o r sh o u ld have know n of t hi s s us cept i bi l i t y or vul ner abi l i t y ; and ( 3) t hi s vul ner abi l i t yors us cept i bi l i t yfac i l it at ed the defe ndant ’ s cr i m e i n s om e m anner ; t hat i s , t her e w as “a n ex u s b etw ee n the victi m ’s v u lnera b il ity an d the c ri m e’s u ltim a te s u c c e s s .” 1 8 4 F. 3 d a t2 2 0 ( q u o t i ng U n it ed S tates v. Mon ostra , 125 F. 3d 183, 190 ( 3d C i r . 1997)

. I n par t i cul ar , H aw es arg u es thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o fi nd t hat t her e w as “a nexus betw een the vi ct i m ’ s vul ner abi l i t y ” and the s ucce s s of hi s fr audu l ents cheme. T he D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notci t e I annone i n fi ndi ng t hat t he vulnera b le vi ct i m enhanc ementappl i ed. I t s fai l ur e t o us e the ca se n am e d u ri n g se n te n c in g in o p en co u rtd o es n o t, h o w ev er, ind icate tha t th e a p p li ca ti o n o f th e e n h an ce m en t w as e rror. I ndeed, t he r eco r d s uppor t s t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s fi ndi ng24 t hatH aw es ’ offe ns e qual i fi ed for t hi s enhanc ement

. Fi r s t , t he vi ct i m s of H aw es ’ fr aud m et t he s t andar d forvul ner abi l i t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our t r efe r r ed t o t he vi ct i m s ’ i m pacts t at ement s and

“ th e c lo se p e rso n a l re latio n sh ip th e D e f e n d a n t h a s h a d w ith so m e o f h is cli en ts, n o t o n ly h is p are n ts, w h o co u ld no t be m o re s us cept i bl e, butal s o t o ot her cl i ent s w ho he per s onal l yknew or w ho w er e r efe r r ed t o hi m byfr i ends and r el at i ves . ” A pp. 402. I tal s o found that“manyof thes e i n d ividu al s w er e r et i r ed, el der l y , s om e s uffe r i ng fr om di s eas es . ” A pp. 4 03. Second, H a w e s k n e w o f h is vic tim s’ v u ln e ra b ili ty . M a n yo f h is c lien ts w ere k n o w n t o hi m per s onal l yorr efe r r ed t o hi m byfr i ends or r e l a t i v e s . A s r e g a r d s o n e o f h i s v i c t i m s , D o r o t h y M c K i n n e y, H aw es k new t hats he w as i n a nur s i ng hom e s uffe r i ng fr om A l zhei m er ’ s and w as l egal l y bl i nd. T hi r d, t her e w as a nexus bet w ee n t he vul ner abi l i t yof the vi ct i m s and the cont i nued su c c e ss o f h is fra u d

. T h e v u ln e ra b le sta tu s o f M s. M c K in n e yin p a r t i c u l a rm a d e i t e a s i e rt o c o n t i n u e t h e f r a u d

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, w hen H aw es ’ m ot herdi s cover ed thatH aw es had st ol en hundr eds of thous ands of dol lars a n d demanded t hathe r epay $125, 000 i m m edi at el y , H aw es pr ocure d t he bul k of thi s s um fr om M s . M cK i nney ’ s accou n t , know i ng t hatherpar t i cul ar vul ner abi l i t i es m ade i tm or e l i kel yt he theftw oul d go u n d e tec ted . T a k in g th is m o n e yto p a y h is m o th e r w a s m e a n t to p re v e n t h is f

a m ily f r o m re p o rtin g th e th e f t an d a llo w it t o c o n tin u e . W e , the re f

o re , fin d th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t er r in e n h a n c in g H a w e s’ o f

f e n se lev e l u n d e r § 3 A 1 .1 (b ) a n d a f f irm its a p p lica tio n o f

th e v u ln e ra b le v ictim e n h a n c e m e n t. 2. Fai l ur e t o c ons i de r 18 U . S. C . § 366 3 i n e nt e r i ng t he25 res t i t ut i on order H aw es cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i der “the fi nanci al r es our ces of the def endant , t he f

i nanci al needs and earni ng abil i t yof the de fe nd a nt , and t he d efen dan t ’s dep end ents , and s u ch ot herfac t or s as t he courtdeems a ppr opr i at e” a s r equi r ed by 18 U

. S. C

. § 3663( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ( I I )

. T he part i es agr ee t hatH aw es fai l ed t o r ai s e thi s obj ect i on at s en te nci ng. W e, t h e r e f o r e , r e v i e w t h e o r d e ro f

r e s t i tu t i o n f

o rp l a i n e r r o r . F e d

. R. C rim . P . 5 2 (b ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ll oyd , 4 6 9 F. 3 d 3 1 9 , 320 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). W e fi nd no pl ai n err oron t he r ecor d her e. H aw es ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he govern m en t pur s uantt o w hi ch t he part i es agreed to the amount of l os s and r es t i tut i on. T he S econd A ddendum t o t he Pr es ent ence R epor ti ncl uded a s pr eads heetr efl ect i ng t he agr eed- t o amount s and w as adopt ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tw hen i ti s s ued the r es t i tut i on or der

. D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he C our tw as i nform ed that , w i t h t he exce pt i on of tw o vi ct i m s , t he part i es had “a gr eed t o w h at the res t i tuti on i s and .. . a g re ed to w hat the am ou nt of l oss at t r i but abl e t o eac h vi ct i m i s . ” A pp. 370. H aw es ’ curr entor futur e abi l i tyt o payr est i tut i on w as neverbefor e the D i s t r i ct C our t

. A l t hough t he C our tw as n otr equi r ed t o acc eptt he par t i es ’ agr eement as t o r es t i tut i on, t he C our t comm it ted no pl ai n err or i n acc ept i ng i t

. W e w i l l t her efor e af fi r m t he or derof r es t i tut i on. 3. R eas onabl enes s of H aw es ’ s ent ence H a w e s a lso a rg u e s th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s u n re a so n a b le26 beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tgave pr es um pt i ve w ei ghtto the g u id e lin e s a n d im p o se d a se n ten c e g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ryto m eett he purpos es of s ent enci ng. B eca us e w e fi nd t hatt he m iscalcu lat ion o f th e G u ideline ra n g e w as n o t harm less erro r, w e c a n n o t r e v ie w th e s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See L an gford , 516 F. 3d at214- 15, 220. W e ar e conf i dentt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l notgi ve presum pt i ve w ei ghtt o t he G ui del i nes on r emand as t he S upr eme C our thas r ece nt l ym ade c le a r th a t th is is e rr o r. G all v. U nited S tates , 128 S. C t

. 586, 597 (20 0 7 ).

III . C ONC L US I ON F or th e f

oregoing reasons, w e w i l l vacate H aw es’ s ent ence and r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng.

W ei s , J

. , C i r cui tJ udge, C oncurr i ng. I agr ee thatt he i dent i fi ca ti on enhanc ements houl d not have be en fa ct or ed i nt o t he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on. T he G ui del i nes ar e advi s or y , notm andat or y , and an e r r or i n t h e Gui d e l i n e s c o mpu t a t i o n ma yb e n e u t r a l i z e d b yt he o v era rch ing scru ti n yreq u ir ed b ythe s en tenc ing co u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a). T he s ent ence her e i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. T he27 D i s t r i ctC our ts etout in d etai l t he fa ct or s t hataff ect ed the s ent ence . I n herr emar ks fr om the benc h att he heari n g, t he ju d g e sa id , in p a rt,

“The l aw r equi r es t hat I i m pos e a s ent ence that is su ff

ici en t t o b u t no t grea ter th an n ec essa ry to f u lf ill th e p u rp o s e o f

s e n te n c in g . . . . F ir stof al l , t he natur e and s er i ous nes s of th e o f f e n s e . Q u ite f

ra n k ly , the o f

f e n se is a w f

u l. It’s a w f u l. T o ru in p e o p les ’ liv e s , to b e h e ld in t r us t a n d t o b e t r a y . Th e s e a r e s e r i o us o f f e n s e s . . . . [T ]hi s i s a veryser i ou s offen se, and j ust pu nis hm ent i s r equ i red und er th e law

. B ecause y ou have done s uch a terri b l e thi ng t o s o m any p e o p le you h a v e to b e d e ter re d a n d o th e rs h a v e to be det err ed w ho m i ghtcons i der en gagi ng i n l i ke conduct

. T her e i s a nee d t o be pr ot ect ed fr om any a d d iti o n a l cr im e s th a t y o u m ig h t co m m it an d to do t hat i t i s m y bel i ef t hat y ou s houl d be pr ovi ded w ith corr ect i on al t reatm ent that can m ost eff ect i vel yhel p y ou t o under s t and w hati ti s t hat y ou have done and w hat the r eper cus s i ons and cons equenc es ar e. T h e sta rtin g p o in t f

o r a n yse n ten c e . . . is t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange w hich I ha ve i ndi c a t e d t o y o u i s a l e v e l 2 7 , c a t e g o r y1 , 7 0

- 87 m o n th s .”28 I ti s obvi ous t hatt he di s t r i ctj udge i nt ended t o i m pos e a su b sta n tial se n ten c e . S h e th e n e x p lain e d , “I b e lie v e th a t a se n ten c e w ith in th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e d o e s a p p ro p ria tely conce r n and addr es s al l of t he conc erns of s ent enci ng t hatI have m e n tio n e d th is a f

te rn o o n .” I n m yvi ew , ourrul i ng t hatt he G u ide l i nes cal cul at i on w as err oneous has cr eat ed s ubs t ant ial uncert ai nt yovert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt enti n s ent enci ng defe ndant

. I f th e j udge bel i eved , af

t erper form i ng t he over al l r evi ew , t hatunder § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a se n ten c e o f 7 6 m o n th s w a s th e a p p ro p ria te puni s hm entr egar dl es s of w hethert hat num ber came w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange, t he s ent ence s houl d be affi r m ed. O n t he other hand, i f the j udge bel i eved thatt he appr opr i at e s ent ence m us tbe w i t hi n t he corr ect G ui del i nes r ange, w hat evert hatm aybe, and d id n o t m e a n to d e v iate f ro m it, p re c e d e n ts o f

th is C o u rt w o u ld s eem t o r equi r e a r emand. T h e D istric t C o u rt m ayha v e b e liev e d th a t th e a p p ro p ria te s ent ence under § 3553( a) w as a t erm of 76 -m o n t hs i m pr i s onm entand, coi nci dent al l y , concl uded thatt he fi gur e w as w ithi n the erroneou s G uidel i nes com pu t at i on . T he record is a m b ig u o u s o n th is p o in t. B ecause theycan o verr i de the ad vis oryG uidel i nes, dis t ri ctj ud ges shou l d carefull yart i culat e t heirrat i on al e in a rriv in g a t a s e n ten c e u n d e r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) c a lcu lu s in o rd e r to avoi d unnece s s aryr es ent enci ng.I di s as s oci at e my s el f fr om t he ci t at i ons t o non pr ec ed en t i al 8 o p in io n s . O u r I n te rn a l O p e ra tin g P r o c e d u re s (I .O .P .) 5 .7 pr ovi des, “ [t]he cour tbyt r adi t i on does notci t e t o i t s not pr ece dent i al opi ni ons as author i t y . S u ch opi ni ons ar e not r egar ded as pr ece dent s t hatbi nd t he courtbeca us e theydo not ci r cul at e t o t he ful l cour t befor e fi l i ng. ” T hat s am e p o l i cy appl i es t o panel dec isi o n s of othercour t s w hi ch have notbeen re c o g n ize d a s a u th o ritativ e b yth e a u th o rin g c o u rt. 29 B eca us e on t he r ecor d befor e us I am unabl e t o det erm i ne t he s ent enci ng j udge’ s i nt ent i on, I j oi n i n t he or dert o r emand. 8