[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 91 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 1- cr-0 00 20 -J DW -MAP- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us
JOR GE ZAMORA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 1 of 6Jo rg e Zam or a ap pe al s h is forty-si x- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r pl ead in g gu il ty to co ns pi racy to c omm ithe al th care frau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 . Zam or a arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby enh an ci ng th e se nt en ce fo r us in g so ph is ti cat edm ean s. He al so arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin en ha nc in g h is of fen se lev el forbe in g am an ag er o f cri m in al act iv it y , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(b ). I. Zam or a fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin en ha nc in g h is off en se le ve l fo r us in g s op hi st ic at edm ean s. Zam or a co nt en ds th athi s co -d efen da nt s d id no t h id e th ei r as se ts or t ran sa ct io ns , us e fi ct it io us en ti ti es , cor po rat e sh el ls , or ov ers eas acco un ts . He als o n ot es th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t s eekth is en ha nc em en t fo r Zam or a’s co -d efen da nt s, an d t he sch em e was eas il y de te ct ed . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t t he de fen da ntus edso ph is ti cat ed m ean s fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3d12 56 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Fora fi nd in g t o b e cl earl y erro ne ou s, we m

us t b e le ft wi th “ a d efi ni te an d firm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m m it te d.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 0) (C) p ro vi de s fo r a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e of fen se in vo lv edso ph is ti cat edm ean s. Th e co m m en tary to th e Gui de li ne s d efi ne s so ph is ti cat edm ean s as 2

Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 2 of 6es pe ci al ly com pl ex or e sp eci al ly int ric at e o ffen se co nduc t p ert ai ni ng to th e ex ecu ti on or c on ceal m en t o f anoff en se . For e xa m

pl e, in a te le m ark et in g s ch em e, lo cat in g t he m ai n o ffi ce o f th e sc he m e in on e juri sd ic ti on bu t l oc at in g s ol ic it in g o pe rat io ns in an ot he r juri sd ic ti on or di naril y in di cat es so ph is ti cat edm ean s. Co nduc t s uc h a s h id in g as se ts or t ran sa ct io ns , or b ot h, t hr ou gh th e u se of f ic ti ti ou s en ti ti es , co rp or at e sh el ls , or o ffs ho re fi na nc ia l ac co un ts als o o rd in ari ly in di cat es so ph is ti cat edm ean s. U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, cmt. 8 (B). We hav e h el d t ha t t he re i s n o re qu ire m en t t ha t an in di vi du al de fen da nt ’s act io ns be so ph is ti cat ed , bu t ra th er, i t i s s uf fic ie ntif t he to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed . Ghe rtl er, 6 05 F.3dat 1 26 7. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in ap pl y in g the so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t. Am on g o th er thi ng s, t he sch em e in vo lv eda sh el l co m pa ny, use d a no m in ee as pre si de ntto sh ie ldth e true own ers , creat edfic ti ti ou s p at ie ntfil es us in g th e id en ti ti es of r eal pe op le , andrequi redus e o f in tri cat e Me di care li enan d rei m bu rs em en t p ro ces se s. Th es e fac ts ten d t o s ho w th atth e sc he m e in vo lv ed so ph is ti cat edm ean s. See U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, cmt. 8 (B). Zam or a h as pro vi de d n o le ga l s up po rt f

orhi s p ro po si ti on th ata sc he m e m us t b e d iff

ic ul t t o d et ectfor

itto qu al ify for t he so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t, n orfor hi s as se rti on th ata sc he m e is no t s op hi st ic at edwher e th e g ov ern m en t d oe s n otsee k the en ha nc em en t fo r al l d efen da nt s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s en ha nc em en t fo r us e of so ph is ti cat edm ean s.
3

Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 3 of 6II.

Pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(b ), th e d is tri ctco urt en ha nc edZam or a’s se nt en ce b y

th ree l ev el s b ecau se he m an ag edth e as se ts of t he cri m in al act iv it y . Zam or a co nt en ds th athe do es no t qua li fy for anen hanc em en t u nd er § 3B 1.1 (b ). W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e fac ts to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pha m , 46 3 F .3d12 39 , 12 45 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). Sect io n 3 B1 .1 p ro vi de s fo r in crea se s t o ade fen da nt ’s off en se lev el ba se d o n hi s ro le in th e o ffen se : (a) If th e de fen da nt was an or ga ni zer or le ad er o f cri m in al act iv it y th at in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rti c i p an ts or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e, in crea se by 4 lev el s. (b ) If th e de fen da nt was a m an ag er o r s up e rv is or (b ut no t an or ga ni zer or le ad er) a n d th e cri m in al act iv it y in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e parti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e, in crea se by 3 le ve ls . U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a )-(b ). Howev er, the co m

m en ta ry to th is sec ti on st at es th at“ [t]o qua li fy foran ad jus tm en t u nd er thi s s ect io n, the de fen da ntm us t h av e b eenth e o rg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is orof o ne or m or e o th er p art ic ip an ts .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1 cmt. 2 (e m ph as es ad de d) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . W il ks , 46 4 F .3d12 40 , 12 45 (11 th

4 Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 4 of 6Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ Whe n i t co m es to th e in te rp ret at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s, Co m m en ta ry an d Ap pl ic at io n No te s o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es are b in di ng on th e co urts un le ss th ey

co nt rad ic t t he pl ai n m ean in g o f th e te xtof t he Gui de li ne s.”) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Here, the re i s n o d is pu te th atth e act iv it y in vo lv edfiv e o r m or e p art ic ip an ts . Als o, t he di st ric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly fou ndth atZam or a h adno t o rg an iz ed , led , or supe rv is edan y

of t he ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s. Rathe r, itsee m s tha t t he di st ric t co urt 1 be li ev edth atZam or a co ul d re cei ve a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o § 3 B1 .1(b ) so le ly becau se he m an ag edth e as se ts of t he cri m in al org an iz at io n. As 2 th e co m m en ta ry in di cat es , Zam or a co ul d n otrece iv e an y ad jus tm en t u nd er § 3 B1 .1(a ), (b ), or(c) u nl es s h e was th e o rg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is or of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s. Th us , th e d is tri ctco urt erredin th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e fac ts to § 3 B1 .1. It i s “ no t n eces sa ry

to . . . rem an d c as es forne w sen te nc e p ro ceed in gs wher e th e g ui de li ne s erro r . . . didno t af fectth e se nt en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Keen e, 47 0 F.3 d 1 34 7, 1 34 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Whe n c on si de rin g wh ethe r anall eg edgu id el in e err or was h arm le ss , we firs t m us t d eci de whethe r th e d is tri ct Dkt. 150 at 57. 1 I d. at 58-59. 2 5 Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 5 of 6co urt wo ul d h av e rea ch edth e sa m e res ul t i f itha d d eci de d t he gu id el in e is su e th e

ot he r way . Id. Here, we ca nn otsay tha t the erro r was ha rm le ss . It i s t ru e th atApp li cat io n Not e 2 to § 3 B1 .1 d oe s g iv e a d is tri ctco urt au th or ity to im po se “ [a]n upwa rd de pa rtu re” wh ere ade fen dant“ ex erci se d m an ag em en t re sp on si bi li ty ove r th e pr op erty , ass et s, o r act iv it ie s o f a cri m in al org an iz at io n.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 cmt. 2 . Howev er, the tra ns cri ptof t he sen te nc in g h eari ng sh ows th atth e d is tri ctco urt in crea se d t he off

en se by thre e le ve ls di rect ly pur su an t t o § 3B 1.1 (b )—wh ic h d id no t ap pl y he re—rat he r th anpu rs ua ntto th e au th or it y gi ve n i n Ap pl ic at io n No te 2. It i s n otcle ar wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt s ti ll wou ldhave im po se d ath ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t (i n t he form of ade pa rtu re u nd er Ap pl ic at io n No te 2) h adth e co urt no t re li edup on § 3 B1 .1(b ); t he co urt, i n i ts di sc ret io n, m ig htha ve ch os ento im po se a di ffer en t am ou ntof d ep artur e. In de ed , th e co urt s ug ge st edth atitwas de ci di ng be twee n atwo - orth ree- le ve l d ep artur e an d e xp li ci tl y co nc lu de d t ha t a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te be cau se § 3 B1 .1(b ) ap pl ie d. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e an d re m an d t hi s i ss ue to th e d is tri ctco urt. See Keen e, 47 0 F.3 d a t 1 34 9. AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

6 Case: 11-14910 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 6 of 6