[DO NOT PUBLISH]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, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 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 Lamar 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 4 
2

18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1029(a)(1), (b)(2), and (c), and for aiding and abetting, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1029(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 they acquired legitimate credit or debit cards with their names on them and 

encoded those cards with the purchased numbers using a laptop and encoder 

device.

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 the 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 that “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 4 
3

used to be,” the court found that the intricate steps involved in the crime 

demonstrated sophisticated means. We review for clear error the 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 steps 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 deferential standard of review.”).

Jenkins argues that the way he committed his crimes was 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 4 
4

of the statutes he violated was written specifically to address fraud involving 

innovative, sophisticated uses of technology. The commentary to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C) 

defines sophisticated means as “especially complex or especially intricate offense 

conduct pertaining to the execution 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 sophisticated 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 ordinarily 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 Jenkins’ crime 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