[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11615

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TANESEA JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cr-00009-AW-MAF-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11615 Date Filed: 11/08/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11615

Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tanesea Jones appeals her sentence of 14-months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1343 and 1349, and aggravated identify theft, aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (2), through a scheme 

to knowingly sell cell phones to individuals using fraudulently obtained personal identifying information. Jones argues that the district court clearly erred by including the loss amount of a co-conspirator, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), resulting in a sixlevel total offense level increase based on the total loss amount of 

the fraudulent conduct under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D). 

We review the district court’s determination of the loss 

amount for clear error. United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 

1232 (11th Cir. 2015). The government has the burden to prove 

the losses attributed to the defendant by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Id. The Sentencing Guidelines do not require that the 

sentencing court make a precise determination of loss. Id. Instead, 

a sentencing court need only make a reasonable estimate of the 

loss, given the available information. Id. We will not vacate a defendant’s sentence based on the district court’s failure to make specific findings if the record otherwise supports the court’s determination. United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 727 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Indeed, the district court is in a unique position to assess the relevant evidence and estimate the loss, and we thus grant the 

USCA11 Case: 21-11615 Date Filed: 11/08/2021 Page: 2 of 4
21-11615 Opinion of the Court 3

sentencing court’s loss amount determination “the appropriate deference.” Cavallo, 790 F.3d at 1232 (citing U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. 

n.3(C)).

The district court may hold all participants in a conspiracy 

responsible for the losses resulting from the reasonably foreseeable 

acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. See id. at 

1235. The “acts and omissions” of the co-conspirators must be: 1) 

“within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity;” 2) 

“in furtherance of” the activity; and 3) “reasonably foreseeable in 

connection with” the activity. United States v. Whitman, 887 F.3d 

1240, 1248 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)). 

“To determine ‘the scope of the defendant’s agreement’ to 

participate in a jointly undertaken criminal scheme, the district 

court may consider ‘any explicit agreement or implicit agreement 

fairly inferred from the conduct of the defendant and others.’” Id.

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.3(B)). A defendant’s “mere awareness” that she was part of a larger scheme is insufficient to show 

that another individual’s criminal activity was within the scope of 

jointly undertaken criminal activity, “[b]ut actions that suggest that 

the defendant was actively involved in a criminal scheme permit 

the inference that the defendant agreed ‘to jointly undertake’ that 

scheme.” Id. (alteration accepted) (first quoting United States v. 

Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1246 (11th Cir. 2018), then quoting 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.3(B))). For example, an implicit agreement 

may be inferred where, even though the various participants in the 

scheme acted on their own behalf, each of the participants “knew 

each other and was aware of the other’s activities” and “aided and 

USCA11 Case: 21-11615 Date Filed: 11/08/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11615

abetted one another by sharing” information necessary for the operation of the scheme. See United States v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314, 

1322 (11th Cir. 2003).

Here, Jones has not shown that the district court clearly 

erred in finding her responsible for both her direct loss amount and 

the loss amount of a co-conspirator, Kheica Jones, under U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) because the record supports the findings that the 

actions and omissions of the co-conspirators were within the scope 

of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, were in furtherance of 

the criminal activity, and were reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity. See Whitman, 887 F.3d at 1248; 

Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 727. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying a six-level increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D) and affirm the sentence. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11615 Date Filed: 11/08/2021 Page: 4 of 4