1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United Stat es 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 Jermaine Roberts, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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 court 1 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 se ntencing guidelines range. We affirm.
Sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) are “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pe rtaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.” § 2B1.1 cmt. n.8(B). Th e sophisticated-means enhancement is proper when the offense conduct, viewed as a whol e, “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 s ophisticated 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 districtcourt’s findings of fact concerning the offense conduct that formed the basis for the sophisticated-means enhancement. He argues instead that the district court erre d in its legal conclusion that those facts constituted sophisticated means under § 2B1.1( b)(9)(C). We disa gree. Roberts and his wife contacted the victim approxima tely one hundred times between March 2006 and June 2008. They concocte d elaborate scenarios to i nduce the victim to surrender more and more money. For instance, Robe rts once falsely told the victim that he required money because his wife had beenjailed for drunk driving. On another occasion, Roberts fabricated a story thathis 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 st atements. He bolstered the continuing requests for money with copious ficti onal court documents, including a notice of appeal, a motion for reconsideration of sent ence, 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 sophisti cated means where he “created and used numerous false documents”). Morever, a number of the fabricated documents falsely bore the caption of the court from wh ich they purportedl y 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 fo rged 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 sophi sticated-means enhancement. See Finck , 407 F.3d at 915.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Roberts’s sentence.

______________________________