1

 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1595

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jermaine Roberts, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2011

Filed: April 21, 2011 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Roberts pled guilty to one count of mail fraud, a violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1341, and six counts of wire fraud, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, arising

out of a scheme by which he and his wife fraudulently induced a victim to send them

money in exchange for legal services they falsely claimed to be performing on behalf

of the victim’s incarcerated friend. On February 22, 2010, the district court1

 sentenced

Roberts to 60 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Roberts
-2-

appeals his sentence, challenging only the application of a two-level sophisticatedmeans enhancement to his advisory sentencing guidelines range. We affirm.

Sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) are “especially complex

or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of

an offense.” § 2B1.1 cmt. n.8(B). The sophisticated-means enhancement is proper

when the offense conduct, viewed as a whole, “was notably more intricate than that

of the garden-variety [offense].” United States v. Hance, 501 F.3d 900, 909 (8th Cir.

2007). “Repetitive and coordinated conduct, though no one step is particularly

complicated, can be a sophisticated scheme.” United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908,

915 (8th Cir. 2005).

Absent a challenge to any of the factual findings underlying the sophisticatedmeans enhancement, “we . . . review de novo ‘whether the district court correctly

applied the guidelines when it determined those facts constituted sophisticated

means.’” Id. at 913 (quoting United States v. Hart, 324 F.3d 575, 579 (8th Cir.

2003)). Roberts does not dispute the district court’s findings of fact concerning the

offense conduct that formed the basis for the sophisticated-means enhancement. He

argues instead that the district court erred in its legal conclusion that those facts

constituted sophisticated means under § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C). We disagree. Roberts and

his wife contacted the victim approximately one hundred times between March 2006

and June 2008. They concocted elaborate scenarios to induce the victim to surrender

more and more money. For instance, Roberts once falsely told the victim that he

required money because his wife had been jailed for drunk driving. On another

occasion, Roberts fabricated a story that his son had died and requested money to

cover expenses. Further, Roberts lied about nonexistent filing fees, court costs, bond

amounts, travel costs, and hourly billing statements. He bolstered the continuing

requests for money with copious fictional court documents, including a notice of

appeal, a motion for reconsideration of sentence, a transportation order, and an order

and ruling. See United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791, 816 (8th Cir. 2006)
-3-

(holding that the defendant used sophisticated means where he “created and used

numerous false documents”). Morever, a number of the fabricated documents falsely

bore the caption of the court from which they purportedly originated. See United

States v. Septon, 557 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming application of the

sophisticated-means enhancement where a scheme involved “submitting numerous

loan applications to lenders containing forged signatures, forged notary stamps, and

falsified or altered [documents]”). We therefore find no error in the district court’s

conclusion that this “[r]epetitive and coordinated conduct”—which succeeded in

defrauding the victim of more than $103,000 over the course of the scheme—can

serve as a basis for the sophisticated-means enhancement. See Finck, 407 F.3d at 915.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Roberts’s sentence.

______________________________