FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 12, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 48 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cr-8 01 41 -KLR-1 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 ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us KATRINA BERKMAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 12 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:A Sou th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a jury con vi ct edKatr in a Berkm anon fiv e

co un ts of b an k fr au d, Co un ts 1-5 , acce ss de vi ce fr au d, Co un t 6 , frau du le nt 1 2 act iv ity with a n a cces s d ev ic e, Co un t 7 , andag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, C ou nt8, 3 an d t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhe r to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 33 m on th s o n Co un ts 1-7 , anda co ns ecu ti ve 24 m on th s’ term on Co un t 8 , for

a to ta l t erm

of im pr is on m en t o f 57 m on th s. Be rkm anno w app eal s h er co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . Berk m anwas t he he adbo ok ke ep er atth e acc ou nt in g fi rm of B erkm an , Jo rg en se n, M as te rs & St afm an(“ BJM&S ”) i n P om pa no Beac h, Fl or id a. One o f he r cl ie nt s was Don naMan zel la , th e o wne r of a ch iro pr act ic an d m as sa ge bu si ne ss cal le d B ack2 Ba ckW el ln es s C en tre (“ B2 B”). Be twee n M arch 20 05 an d M arch 20 07 , sh e cau se d t he ele ctro ni c tr an sf er o f ap pr ox im at el y

$1 75 ,00 0 fr om

B2 B’s acco un t atSun Tru stBan k t o v ari ou s ac co un ts , in cl ud in g a cco un ts sh e an d h er fo rm er h us ba nd , Andrew Kan ic li de s, h adwith Am eri can Exp res s. Fi ve of t he tra ns fers are t he subjec ts of C ou nt s 1 -5 . Ano th er BJ M&S cli en t was Ph il li p Sch um an(aneld erl y

m anwho , at the ti m e o f Berkm an ’s tri al was i nc ap aci ta te d 18 U.S.C. § 1344. 1 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) . 2 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and (b) (1). 3 2an d c ou ldno t t es ti fy ). Berkm anob ta in edSchum an ’s Ban k o f Am eri ca ac co un t

nu m be r, an d dur in g Ap ril 20 07 (aft er b ei ng cu t o ff fro m th e B2 B acc ou nt ), sh e m ad e a s eri es of e le ctro ni c tr an sf ers to he r an d Kan ic li de s’s Am eri can Exp res s acco un ts to ta li ng ap pr ox im at el y $1 64 ,00 0. Be rkm an ’s act iv it y with S ch um an ’s acco un t i s t he subjec t o f Co un ts 7 an d 8 . Berk m anpre se nt s s ev eral arg um en ts in ch al le ng in g h er co nv ic ti on s. Fi rs t, sh e ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o s ev er Co un ts 7 an d 8 fro m th e res t o f th e ch arg es . Seco nd , sh e o bjec ts to a nu m be r of he ars ay st at em en ts adm it te d a t tri al . Thir d, s he arg ue s t ha t the ex cl us io n o f a p art ic ul ar d oc um en t fr om ev id en ce vi ol at edhe r ri gh t t o p res en t ev id en ce i n h er d efen se an d t o e ffec ti ve ly cros sex am in e th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t h er. Fo urth , sh e arg ue s t ha t the Gov ern m en t’s pr oo f was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h er co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 7 an d 8 . Fin al ly, in ch al le ng in g h er s en te nc es , sh e co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s u se of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ab us e-o f-tru sten ha nc em en t was un warra nt edbe cau se sh e di d n oten joy a po si ti on of t ru stbe y on d wh atis in he ren t i n e ve ry frau d s cen ari o. W e fi ndno m eri t i n a ny of Berkm an ’s cha ll en ge s an d t he refo re af firm . I. Berk m anfir starg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to sev er Co un ts 7 an d 8 fro m th e in di ct m en t, the reb y

for ci ng he r to ch oo se 3be twee n t es ti fy in g a s t o a ll eig htco un ts or n ottes ti fy in g a t al l. Sh e co nt en ds th at

he r di sb el ie ve d t es ti m on y pro vi de d t he Gov ern m en t wi th it s s tro ng es t ev id en ce o n Co un ts 7 an d 8 , andth atth e Gov ern m en t wo ul d n otha ve be enab le to sec ur e co nv ic ti on s o n t ho se co un ts if s he were al lo wedto li m ithe r te st im on y to Co un ts 1 th ro ug h 6 . Furt he r, sh e arg ue s t ha t b ecau se Sch um anwas u na va il ab le to tes ti fy , th e Gov ern m en t was ab le to in tro du ce u nr el iabl e h ears ay st at em en ts rel at in g t o Co un ts 7 t hr ou gh 8 t ha t u nd erm in edhe r de fen se on Co un ts 1 t hr ou gh 6. Whe n ade fen da ntis ch arg edin a m ul ti -co un t i nd ic tm en t, the di st ric t co urt can sev er the joi ne d c ou nt s i nt o s ep arat e tr ia ls in ord er t o p rev en t p reju di ce t o t he de fen da nt . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 14 . A dis tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s ev er an in di ct m en t i s re vi ewedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Her sh , 29 7 F.3 d 1 23 3, 1 24 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . The d en ia l o f a s ev eran ce m ot io n wi ll no t b e rev ers edun le ss th e d efen da ntsu ffer ed“ co m pe ll in g p reju di ce” a s a r es ul t o f th e joi nd er. Id

. at 1 24 4. Sev eran ce m ot io ns requi re the di st ric t co urt t o b al an ce the de fen da nt ’s rig ht to a fai r tr ia l ag ai ns t the publ ic ’s in te res t i n the effi ci en t an d e co no m ic adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Sev eran ce i s n otrequi redsi m pl y be cau se a de fen da ntwis he s t o t es ti fy as to so m e co un ts bu t n otas t o o th ers . Her sh , 29 7 F .3dat 1 24 3 n .15 . Rath er, a 4de fen da ntm us t d em on st rat e th atsh e h as im po rta nttes ti m on y

to gi ve on on e se t o f co un ts , anda st ro ng ne edto refra in fro m tes ti fy in g o n t he ot he rs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Mon tes- Ca rden as , 74 6 F .2d77 1, 7 78 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). One i m po rta nt co ns id erat io n i n t hi s an al y si s i s wh ethe r se ve rin g t he co un ts wou ldach ie ve th e ex cl us io n t ha t the de fen dantde si res . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ben z , 74 0 F .2d90 3, 9 12 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (ex pl ai ni ng th atsev eri ng th e tr ia ls wou ldno t s ub st an ti al ly lim it th e g ov ern m en t’s ab il it y

to in tro du ce ev id en ce o r el ic ittes ti m on y fro m th e de fen da nt ). Not ab ly, whe n ade fen da nttes ti fie s o n h er o wn b eh al f, sh e wai ve s t he Fi fth Am en dm en t p riv il eg e to refu se to an swe r qu es ti on s p ro pe rly with in th e sc op e o f cro ss -ex am in at io n, wh ic h i nc lu de s al l m atte rs “ reas on ab ly relat ed ” to he r te st im on y on di rectex am in at io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pi lc he r , 67 2 F .2d87 5, 8 78 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Berk m an ’s sev eran ce m ot io n. In th atm ot io n, Be rkm anpre se nt eda crypti c ex pl an at io n o f he r ne edto refra in fro m tes ti fy in g o n C ou nt s 7 an d 8 , andth us fai le d t o c arry her b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e n eedforsev eran ce. Mo reo ve r, sh e fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atsh e su ffer ed“ co m pe ll in g p reju di ce” a s a r es ul t o f th e de ni al , forsev eran ce wo ul d n otha ve subs ta nt ia ll y li m it edth e Gov ern m en t’s ab il it y to in tro du ce ev id en ce o r el ic ittes ti m on y fro m he r. 5II.

Berk m anarg ue s t ha t the co urt i m pr op erl y pe rm it te d S ch um an ’s bo ok ke ep er to tes ti fy th atSch um anha d b een an gry an d ups etfol lo win g t he di sc ov ery of th e el ect ro ni c tr an sf

ers , andth athe ha d d ire ct edth e b oo kk eep er t o c al l t he ba nkan d di sp ut e th e ch arg es . For o ne , sh e co nt en ds th atth e st at em en ts were “ te st im on ia l” fo r pu rp os es of t he Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e b ecau se th ey were m ad e dur in g t he bo ok ke ep er’s eff

ort t o g athe r ev id en ce o f cri m in al act iv it y . She fu rth er ar gu es th atev enif t he st at em en ts were “ no nt es ti m on ia l,” t he y were s ti ll in adm is si bl e un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e b ecau se th ey di d n otfal l und er an y

of t he he ars ay ex cep ti on s. A di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s ar e o rd in ari ly revi ewedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n, wh il e ru li ng s o n t he sp eci fic is su e o f whe th er h ears ay st at em en ts are te st im on ia l fo r pu rp os es of t he Six th Am en dm en t’s Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e are rev ie wed de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. C ar ab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 26 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Fo r pu rp os es of b oth t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e an d t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e, he ars ay

st at em en ts are d efi ne d a s o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts off eredto pr ov e th e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga ri , 57 2 F .3d13 52 , 13 61 n.7 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Non ve rb al co nduc t m ay qu al ify as a h ears ay

st at em en t 6if t he de cl aran t i nt en de d t he co nduc t “ as anass ert io n.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (a); se e

al so Uni te d Sta tes v. La mon s , 53 2 F .3d12 51 , 12 63 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Ru le 80 1( a) i n a na lyzin g aCo nf ro nt at io n C laus e is su e). The Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e b ars th e adm is si on of “ te st im on ia l” he ars ay un le ss th e d ecl aran t i s una va il ab le an d t he de fen da ntha d apri or op po rtu ni ty for cro ss -ex am in at io n. Cra wf or d v . W as hi ng to n , 54 1 U.S. 3 6, 6 8, 1 24 S.Ct . 13 54 , 13 74 , 15 8 L.Ed .2d17 7 (2 00 4) . Hears ay st at em en ts are t es ti m on ia l wh en“ m ad e un de r ci rcu m st an ces whi ch wou ldlea d a n o bjec ti ve witne ss reas on ab ly to b el ie ve th atth e st at em en t wo ul d b e av ai labl e fo r us e ata la te r tr ia l.” Cr aw fo rd , 54 1 U.S. at52 , 12 4 S .Ct. at13 64 . Formal st at em en ts gi ve n dur in g t he co ur se of p ol ic e in te rro ga ti on s ar e “ de

fi ni ti vel ytes ti m on ia l.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d 11 89 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d, em ph as is in ori gi na l). By co nt ras t, s ta te m en ts m ad e in pri va te co nv ers at io n are g en eral ly non te st im on ia l be cau se th ere i s n o re as onto be li ev e th atth e st at em en ts wil l b e u se d a t t ria l. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. US

Inf ra stru ct ur e, In c. , 57 6 F .3d11 95 , 12 09 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Acco rd in gl y , su ch st at em en ts are n otsubjec t t o t he requi rem en ts of t he Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e. Eve n i f th e Co nf

ro nt at io n C laus e d oe s n otap pl y , hea rs ay st at em en ts are in adm is sabl e u nl es s t he y

fal l wi th in on e o f th e ex cep ti on s en um erat edin th e

7Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Gar i , 57 2 F .3dat 1 36 1 n .7. Ru le 80 3( 2) crea te s an

ex cep ti on forst at em en ts “ rel at in g t o ast art li ng ev en t o r co nd it io n m ad e whi le th e de cl aran t was un de r th e st res s o f ex ci te m en t caus edby the ev en t o r co nd it io n.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (2 ). The ex ci te d u tt eran ce ex cep ti on do es no t re qu ire th atth e st at em en t b e m ad e co nt em po ran eo us ly w it h t he st art li ng ev en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Belf as t , 61 1 F .3d78 3, 8 17 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Rathe r, in rul in g o n t he ex cep ti on , we sh ou ldco ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces to de te rm in e if th e d ecl aran t was st il l u nd er the st res s o r ex ci te m en t o f th e st art li ng ev en t atth e ti m e th e st at em en t was m ad e. Id. Berk m andi d n otsp eci fic al ly objec t b el ow t o t he in tro du ct io n o f th e h ears ay te st im on y on Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e g ro un ds , andhe r co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e m ay th eref or e b e rev ie wab le forpl ai n e rro r on ly. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra ad , 40 6 F .3d 13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The ch al le ng e fai ls un de r an y st an da rd , ho wev er, be cau se st at em en ts Schum anut te redwere m ad e in a pr iv at e co nv ers at io n wi th th e pu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng anon go in g t hr eatto th e se curit y of h is ch eck in g a cco un t, no t wi thth e p ur

po se of c reat in g e vi de nc e fo r tr ia l. The refo re, the st at em en ts were no nt es ti m on ia l an d wer e n otsubjec t t o t he requi rem en ts of the Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se .

8Fu rth er, h is st at em en ts als o fe ll un de r th e ex ci te d u tt eran ce ex cep ti on to th e

he ars ay rul e. The p rimary

st at em en t atis su e—S ch um an ’s di rect iv e th atth e bo ok ke ep er ca ll th e b an k t o d is pu te th e ch arg es —was m ad e aft er Sc hu m anha d be enin fo rm edth atth ere h adbe ena $1 00 ,00 0 e le ctro ni c tr an sf er o utof h is acco un t. Giv enth e ev id en ce tha t Sc hu m anne ve r m ad e n orall owe d h is em pl oyees to m ak e el ect ro ni c tr an sf ers , th e rec ei ptof t ha t i nf orm at io n was su ffi ci en tl y

“ st art li ng ” to tri gg er the ex cep ti on . Mor eo ve r, th e ev id en ce s up po rts th e co urt’s fin di ng th athe was s ti ll un de r th e st res s o f th e st art li ng ev en t atth e ti m e o f th e di sp ut edst at em en t. Fi na ll y , th e b oo kk eep er’s t es ti m on y th atSch um ansee m ed an gry an d ups etwas p ro pe rly adm it te d b ecau se a pe rs on ’s gen eral de m ean ordo es no t co ns ti tu te a “ st at em en t” forhe ars ay pu rp os es . III. Berk m anarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt v io la te d h er Fi fth an d S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh ts by pro hi bi ti ng he r fro m cro ss -ex am in in g aGov ern m en t re bu tt al wit ne ss ab ou t wh ethe r Don naMan zel lafil edfordi vo rce a20 09 , andby excl ud in g th e in tro du ct io n o f th e d iv or ce p et it io n. Be rkm anco nt en ds th atev id en ce o f th e pe nd in g d iv or ce wo ul d h av e subs ta nt ia ll y bo ls te redhe r cl ai m

th atsh e was au th or iz edto m ak e el ect ro ni c tr an sf ers ou t o f th e B2 B b an k a cco un t as part o f a sc he m e to hi de m on ey

fro m th e Ma nz el la ’s hu sb an d.

9The Six th Am en dm en t’s co nf ro nt at io n ri gh t i nc lu de s t he rig htof c ro ss ex am in at io n. Davis v. Alas ka , 41 5 U.S. 3 08 , 31 5, 9 4 S .Ct. 1 10 5, 1 10 9, 3 9 L.Ed .2d 34 7 (1 97 4) . Thu s, a d is tri ctco urt m us t al lo w su ffi ci en t cr os s- ex am in at io n fo r th e jury to ad equa te ly ass es s a g ov ern m en t wi tn es s’s cr ed ib il it y . Uni te d Sta tes v. La nk fo rd , 95 5 F .2d15 45 , 15 48 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Mo reo ve r, th e Si xt h Am en dm en t gu aran te es de fen da nt s t he rig htto a “ co m pu ls ory pro ces s fo r ob ta in in g wi tn es se s in hi s fa vo r.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. Im pl ic itin th is rig ht—as well as i n t he Fif th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o due pro ces s— is th e id ea tha t cr im in al de fen dant s m us t b e affo rd edth e o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t ev id en ce i n t he ir f av or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu rn , 36 8 F .3d13 59 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In a ss es si ng a de fen dant ’s cla im s u nd er the Fi fth an d S ix th Am en dm en ts to cal l wi tn es se s i n d efen se , we eng ag e in a two -s te p an al y si s. Id. at 1 36 2. We firs t ex am in e whe th er the de fen da nt ’s rig ht s wer e vi ol at ed , andth en , if n eces sa ry , det erm in e whe th er the erro r was “ ha rm le ss be y on d a rea so nabl e d oubt .” Id. at 1 36 2- 63 . The ex cl us io n o f a d efen da nt ’s evi de nc e v io la te s t he Fif than d S ix th Am en dm en t wh ere t he ev id en ce “pe rta in s t o c ol la te ral m at te rs th at , th ro ug h a reas on ab le ch ai n o f in fere nc es , cou ldm ak e th e ex is te nc e o f on e o r m or e o f th e el em en ts of t he ch arg edoff en se or a n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se m or e o r le ss cert ai n.” Hurn , 36 8 F .3dat 1 36 3. By con tra st , th ere i s n o c on st itut io na l v io la ti onwher e th e 10“pr of

fere d e vi de nc e d oe s n otbe ar a l og ic al rel at io ns hi p t o a n e le m en t o f th e of fen se or a n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se .” Id. at 1 36 6. “ Mo reo ve r, a d is tri ctco urt m ay ex cl ud e ev id en ce wh ere t he rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e ev id en ce an d the ele m en t o f th e o ffen se or a ffi rm at iv e d efen se at i ss ue is si m pl y to o a tt enua te d.” Id. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g t he di vo rce pe ti ti on fro m

ev id en ce. Fi rs t, the is su e o f whe th er o r no t M an zel lawas s eek in g a di vo rce i n 2 00 9 was no t re le va ntto th e reb ut ta l wi tn es s’s cr ed ib il it y , si nc e th e wit ne ss tes ti fie d o nl y

as t o M an zel la ’s bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi p wi th he r hu sb an d be twee n 2 00 5 a nd20 07 . Accor di ng ly, th e ex cl us io n o f th e p et it io n d idno t v io la te Berk m an ’s con fro nt at io n ri gh ts . As t o B erkm an ’s rig htto pre se ntev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt co ul d h av e reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atth e p et it io n was no t s uf fic ie nt ly relat edto Berkm an ’s au th or iz at io n d efen se . The fac t t ha t M an zel lafil edfordi vo rce i n 2 00 9 h adli tt le be ari ng on th e que st io n o f whe th er the acco un t d is crep an ci es cit edby the Gov ern m en t wer e actua ll y m ad e wit h h er co ns en t, an d wer e p artof a n e labo rat e sc he m e to de frau d h er h us ba ndin 20 06 an d 2 00 7. Acco rd in gl y , th e ex cl us io n o f th e p et it io n o n re le va nc y

gro un ds was c on st itut io na ll y pe rm is si bl e. IV.

11Berk m anarg ue s t ha t the Gov ern m en t’s p ro of was i ns uf

fic ie ntto supp ort h er co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s 7 an d 8 —t he co un ts rel at in g t o S chum an . Spe ci fic al ly, sh e arg ue s t ha t the Gov ern m en t fa il edto ne ga te he r co nt en ti on th atSch um anoff ered he r a l oa n a ndth enauth or iz edhe r to withd raw fund s fr om hi s ac co un t. W e rev ie w in su ffi ci en t-e vi de nc e cl ai m s de no vo , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n th e li gh t “ m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t . . . [an d m ak in g] all in fere nc es an d cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns in fav orof t he ve rd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C hi ri no Alva re z , 61 5 F .3d13 44 , 13 46 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). To p rev ai l o n a n i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce cl ai m , th e d efen da ntm us t es tabl is h t ha t n o “ rat io na l t rie r of factco ul d ha ve fou ndth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Ja cks on v. Vir

gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 3 07 , 31 9, 9 9 S .Ct. 2 78 1, 2 78 9, 6 1 L.Ed .2d56 0 (1 97 9) . A defe nd an t’s t es ti m on y , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id eredas subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f gu il t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 53 F.3d31 2, 3 14 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Howev er, the de fen dant ’s di sb el ie ve d t es ti m on y m ay no t b e th e so le ba si s supp orti ng a co nv ic ti on be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. McC ar ri ck , 29 4 F .3d12 86 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To co nv ic t a d efen dantforacce ss de vi ce fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( a)(2 ), th e Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve th atBerkm an : (1 ) kn owi ng ly use d a n un au th or iz edacce ss de vi ce; (2) with t he in te ntto de frau d; (3) to ob ta in an yth in g 12ha vi ng anag gr eg at e v al ue of $ 1,0 00 or m or e o ve r th e co ur se of aon e-year pe rio d.

Uni te d Sta tes v. K

lo pf , 42 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Furth er, the Gov ern m en t h adto sh ow tha t the us e o f th e acc es s d ev ic e aff ect edin te rs ta te co m m erce . Id. The term

“ acce ss de vi ce” i nc lu de s ac co un t n um be rs , ele ctro ni c se ria l num

be rs , andpe rs on al id en ti fic at io n num be rs . 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( e)(1 ). To s up po rt aco nv ic ti on for ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ), th e Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve th atBerkm an : (1 ) kn owi ng ly tra ns ferr ed , po ss es se d, o r us ed ; (2 ) th e m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n o f an ot he r pe rs on ; (3 ) wit ho utlawf

ul au th or it y ; (4 ) du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o c ert ai n qua li fy in g fel on ie s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a)(1 ). The t erm “ m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n” in cl ud es al l ac ces s d ev ic es li st edin§ 1 02 9( e), i nc lu di ng ba nk -acc ou ntnu m be rs . Se e § 1 02 8( d) (7 )(A)(D). M or eo ve r, th e cri m e o f acc es s d ev ic e fraudis a qu al ifyin g fel on y forpu rp os es of t he id en ti ty-th eftst atut e. Se e § 1 02 8A( c)(4 ). Berk m an ’s con vi ct io ns are s up po rte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. As t o C ou nt7, th e o nl y di sp ut edele m en t o f th e o ffen se was wh ethe r Schum anau th or iz edth e el ect ro ni c tr an sf

ers fro m hi s ac co un t. The Gov ern m en t i nt ro du cedov erwh el m in g ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th e la ckof aut ho riz at io n, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) ba nkst at em en ts sh owi ng th atSch um anwas re im bu rs edforth e tr an sf

ers ; (2 ) te st im on y

th athe ha d ne ve r pr ev io us ly m ad e o r au th or iz edanem pl oyee to m ak e anele ctro ni c tr an sf er; 13an d (3 ) te st im on y th athe pa ida $3 00 rewardforth e d is co ve ry of t he tra ns fers . Fu rth er, the ev id en ce was als o s uf fic ie ntto supp ort t he id en ti ty-th eftoff en se ch arg edinCo un t 8 , bec au se th e actof m ak in g a n u naut ho riz edele ctro ni c tr an sf er requi redm is ap pr op ria ti ng Sch um an ’s ban k- acco un t num be r. V. Berk m anarg ue s t ha t the two -le ve l en ha nc em en t o f he r ba se off en se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3 was no t warran te d b ecau se th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto es tabl is h t ha t s he en

joy eda po si ti on of t ru stbe y on d wh atis in he ren t i n e ve ry frau d s cen ari o. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e as se rts th atth e m ere f actth atsh e was fri en ds wit h M an zel lawas n otsu ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh a rel at io ns hi p o f sp eci al tru st . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt's co nc lu si on th atth e d efen da nt ’s co nduc t ju st ifi es anab us e-o f-tru sten ha nc em en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rr is on , 13 3 F.3 d 8 31 , 83 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . The two- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3B 1.3 ap pl ie s whe re the de fen da nt“ ab us eda po si ti on of p ub li c o r pr iv at e trus t . . . ina m an ne r th atsi gn ifi can tl y

faci li ta te d t he co m

m is si on or c on ceal m en t o f th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3. “ [T]he p rimary co nc ern of § 3B 1.3 is to pe na li ze d efen da nt s who tak e ad va nt ag e o f a p os it io n t ha t p ro vi de s t he m free do m to co m m itor c on ceal a d iff ic ul t-t o- de te ctwron g,” Gar riso n , 13 3 F .3dat 8 38 (qu ot at io ns an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . 14The re i s a c om po ne ntof m is pl acedtru stin he ren t i n t he co nt ex t o f frau d, an d we ha ve cau ti on edsen te nc in g c ou rts no t t o b e “ ov erl y bro ad ” in im

po si ng th e ab us e-o f-tru sten ha nc em en t o n fr au d d efen da nt s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gh er tl er , 60 5 F.3 d 1 25 6, 1 26 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Neverth el es s, the ab us e-o f-tru sten ha nc em en t ap pl ie s t o fr au d d efen da nt s atlea st“ whe re a fi du ci ary orpe rs on al tru st rel at io ns hi p e xi st s wi th ot he r en ti ti es , andth e d efen da nttak es advant ag e o f th e rel at io ns hi p t o p erp etrat e o r co nc eal th e o ffen se .” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha ll , 34 9 F.3 d 1 32 0, 1 32 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly app li edth e ab us e-o f-tru sten ha nc em en t b as edon Berk m an ’s exp lo it at io n o f he r fri en ds hi p a ndpro fes si on al rel at io ns hi p wi th Man zel la . Whi le all bo ok ke ep ers are en tru st edwith s en si ti ve ba nk in g in fo rm at io n, t he ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se su gg es ts th atBerkm anen joy edanun us ua ll y lo w lev el of s up erv is io n i n m an ag in g t he B2 B b an k a cco un t. Thi s l ow l ev el of supe rv is io n e nabl edhe r bo th to co m m itth e o ffen se an d t o c on ceal itfor a subs ta nt ia l p eri odof t im e. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, Be rkm an ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es are AFFIR MED.

15