[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11988 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:11

- cr - 00045

- RH

- CAS

- 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LOMAX LAMAR JENKINS,
lllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

________________________ (November 19, 2012) Before CARNES , HULL, and MARTIN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lomax La mar Jenkins appeals his concurrent 37

- month prison sentences for conspiracy to commit fraud with counterfeit credit and debit cards, in violation of

Case: 12-11988 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 1 of 42 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1029(a)(1) , (b)(2), and (c), and for aiding and abetting , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § §102 9(a)(1) , 1029 (c) , and 2 . He contends that the district court erred in applying a two

- level sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) (Nov. 2011)

. I. Jenkins was a member of a crew that defrauded more than 700 people. They purchased credit or debit card numbers online from “somewhere

. . . overseas.” Then t hey acquired legitimate credit or debit cards with their names on them and encoded those cards with the purchased numbers using a laptop and encoder
de vice. Armed with those fraudulent cards, Jenkins and others purchased gift cards from various stores, which they sold online for cash . Sometimes the accomplices went to different stores, but when they went to the same store, they would text each other th e number of the check

- out lane they used to avoid raising a “red flag.” The cards that failed to work would be taken to an accomplice who was waiting in the parking lot with his laptop ready for re

- encoding

. II. Although the district court acknowledged t hat “the level of sophistication required to get an encoder, copy a card, and engage in this activity is less than it

Case: 12-11988 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 2 of 43 used to be,” the court found that the intricate steps involved in the crime demonstrated sophisticated means. We review for clear error t he district court’s finding that the defendant used sophisticated means. United States v. Ghertler , 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010). We will not disturb the district court’s finding unless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id.
Jenkins contends that using a cell phone to text or a laptop in a car is “nothing special.” But special equipment does not need to be used in the crime to justify a finding that sophisticated means were used

. See e.g., United States v. Robertson , 493 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming the district court’s imposition of the sophisticated means enhancement when the defendant used fictitious names, addresses, and entities to disguise his identity). Even crimes involving simple ste ps can be committed using sophisticated means if the
combination of all the steps demonstrates sophistication. See Ghertler , 605 F.3d at 1268 (“It is true that aspects of [the defendant’s] scheme were not sophisticated

. . . . Still, the totality of these activities carried out over an extended period of time is sufficient to support the district court’s finding that [the defendant] used sophisticated means under our def erential standard of review.”). Jenkins argues that the way he committed his crime s wa s not especially complex when compared with the way this crime is usually committed because one

Case: 12-11988 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 3 of 44 of the statute s he violated was written specifically to address fraud involving innovative, sophisticated uses o f technology. The commentary to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C ) defines sophisticated means as “ especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the executio n or concealment of an offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) cmt. n.8. The commentary does not suggest that for certain offenses sophis ticated uses of technology is required. Instead, it gives this example of how the guideline might apply: “ [I]n a telemarketing scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction o rdinarily indicates sophisticated means. Conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.” Because Jenkin s ’ cri me involved several complex steps, the
district court did not clearly err by finding that he used sophisticated means. AFFIRMED

. Case: 12-11988 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 4 of 4