## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e26,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 1296 CATHER I NE I LE EN S P EAR,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D. C. NO . 0 6 - CR- 7 7 - LTB) L ynn C . H ar t fi el d, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( R aym ond P. M oor e, F e d e ra l P u b lic D e fe n d e r, w ith h e r o n th e b rie fs), O ffice o f th e F e d e ra l P u b lic D e fe n d e r, D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r A p p e llan t. J ames C. M urphy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( T r oyA . E i d, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and K athl een L. T or r es , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) O ffi ce of

t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , D enver , C ol or ado, forA ppel l ee. B efo re TY M KOVI CH , EBEL , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. C ather i ne Spearw or ked as a fe der al i m m i gr at i on empl oy ee r es pons i bl e for th e in tak e o f

a p p lica tio n s s u b m itt e d b yp e rso n s a p p ly in g fo r c h a n g e s in th e ir-2-

i m m i gr at i on s t atus . I ns t ead of pr oces s i ng t he appl i cat i ons , s he keptt he fe es a c c o m p a n y in g th e a p p lic a tio n s a n d th e n th re w th e a p p lic a tio n s in th e tr a s h . A ft erhers cheme w as uncover ed, s he pl eade d gui l t yt o t w o count s of e mb e z z l e me n to f

g o v e r n me n tf

u n d s i n e x c e s s o f

$ 1 , 0 0 0 , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 6 41 . A pp l y i ng t he tw o-l evel enhan cem ent for abusi ng a po si t i on of p ub l i c t rust p u rsua n t t o § 3 B 1 . 3 o f th e U . S . S en tenc ing G u idelines (U S S G ), the c o u rt s ent ence d hert o 14 m ont hs i n pr i s on. She now appea l s t hats ent ence . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . C o n clud ing that S p ea r’s po si t i on l acked t he au t ho ri t yand dis cret i on requi red for the ab use of pu bli c t rust enhanc ement , w e R E V E R SE t he di s t r i ctcour tand R E M A N D forr es ent enci ng. I . Backg r ound C a t h e r i n e I l e e n S p e a rw orked asan Exam inati onsA s s i s tantin the U nited States C itizen sh ip an dImm igrati o nS erv ices B ureau(U S C IS ) inD env er, C o lorad o . T h e U S C IS h an d le s ap p lic atio n san dp e titio n sre g ard in gv ari o u s c itiz e n s h ip an dimm igratio nm atte rs . M anys ub m is s io n sre qu irep aym e nt o f af e e , w h ic hth eU S C IS c o lle c ts an dp ro c e s s e s . Spear ’ s pos iti on included proces s ing the numerouss ubm i s s i onsm ai l ed into the U SC I S as w e l l a s col l ect i ng, r ecor di ng, and depos i t i ng anyacc om pany i ng fee s . She al s o w as r es pons i bl e forpr epar i ng pr ogr am re por t s , m anagi ng t r avel fort he D enveroffi ce, a n d a d d re ss in g b u ild in g m a in ten a n c e iss u e s. S h e d id n o t h a v e th e a u th o rityto app rove i m m i grat i on app l i cat i on s.-3-

I n ear l y2005, s ever al appl i cant s not i fi ed U SC I S t hatt hei rappl i cat i ons had notbeen pr oces s ed eve n t hough t hei rm oneyor der s had bee n cas hed. A ft eran i nves t i gat i on, t he governm entdet erm i ned Spearhad s t ol en the funds . She acc om pl i s hed thi s bycover i ng t he fi r s tt w o l et t er s fr om t he pay ee l i ne on money or der s s ubm i t t ed pay abl e t o “U SC I S, ” r el y i ng upon t he r emai ni ng “C I S” not at i on t o d epo si tt he fu nd s i nto her ow n acco un t s ( based o n h er m at ching i nit i al s— C ather i ne I l een Spea r ) . For t y - s i x m oneyor der s fr om i m m i gr at i on appl i cat i ons t ot al i ng $11, 210 w er e depos i t ed i nt o Spear ’ s per s onal bank ac count . Spear admi t t ed, aft erdepos i t i ng t he funds i nt o herper s onal bank ac count , s he di s car ded t he acc om pan y i ng app l i cat i on s. Spearw as char ged w i t h s i xt een c ount s of embezzl ementof governm ent pr oper t yas w el l as an enha ncementpr ovi s i on t hatappl i es w hen the val ue of the embezzl ed pr oper t yexce eds $1, 000. She pl eade d gui l t yt o t w o count s of e m b e z z le m e n t a n d th e e n h a n c e m e n t p ro v is io n . P r i o rt o s e n t e n c i n g , t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r te v a l u a t e d t wo p o ss ib le s e n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n ts: (1 ) ta rg e tin g v u ln e ra b le v ictim s p u rsu a n t to U SSG § 3A 1. 1, and ( 2) abus i ng a pos i t i on of trus tpur s uantt o U SSG § 3B 1. 3. T he r epor tconcl uded thatnei t herenhanc ementw as m er i t ed. N onethel es s , t he governm entar gued forbot h enhanc ement s ats ent enci ng. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed t he governm ent ’ s r eques tfort he § 3A 1. 1 vul ner abl e vi ct i m enhanc ement , but a g re e d to a p p lyth e § 3 B 1 .3 a b u se o f tru st e n h a n c e m e n t. B a se d o n th is-4-

det erm i nat i on, t w o s ent enci ng l evel s w er e adde d, doubl i ng herm axi m um s ent ence f ro m 6 m o n th s to 1 2 m o n th s . T he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed on thr ee gr ounds fort he enha ncement : ( 1) a l et t er su b m itted f

rom a su p erv isor claim ing S p ea r w as in a p o sit ion o f trust, (2) S p ea r’s j ob r es pons i bi l i t i es as i dent i fi ed i n a pr i orper form ance eval uat i on, and ( 3) conce r ns t hatSpear ’ s m i s conductfur t hercompl i cat ed an a l r eadycompl i cat ed im m ig ra tio n p ro c e ss , es p e c iallyfo r th o se u n fo rtu n a te fa m ili e s s e e k in g c iti z e n sh ip forfor ei gn- bor n, adopt i ve chi l dr en. M or eover , even a ft erappl y i ng the abus e of tru st e n h a n c e m e n t, th e d istric t co u rt s ua s pont e var i ed upw ar ds fr om t he gui del i nes r ange of

6- 12 m ont hs and s ent ence d Speart o 14 m ont hs beca us e of the cons equenc es hercr i m e i m pos ed on i nnocentvi ct i m s enmeshe d i n t he i m m i gr at i on s y s t e m. O n appea l , Spearchal l enges t he enha ncement , t he r eas onabl enes s of her s ent ence , and a l ack of pr e- s ent ence not i ce r egar di ng t he s ua s pont e u p w ard v a ri a n c e . I I . D i s cus s i on

“ W h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t o c c u p ied a p o sitio n o f tru st u n d e r U S S G § 3 B 1 .3 is g e n e ra lly a fa c tu a l m a tte r” th a t w e re v ie w fo r c le a r e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. Haber , 251 F. 3d 881, 890–91 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G uidel i nes de novo t o s ee i f the corr ects t andar d w as appl i ed t o t he fa ctual fin d in g s , id . at890, and w hethert he court ’ s “det erm i nat i on t hatt he fa ct s j us t i fyan-5-

a b u s e -o f-t ru s t e n h a n c e m e n t” w a s c o rr e c t. Un itedS ta tes v . B ritt , 388 F. 3d 1369, 1 3 7 1 (11 C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In th is case , n o rea l dispu te ex ist s as to the d istri ct co u rt ’s

th fac tual fi ndi ngs . T he ques t i on i s w hethert he di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed the pr oper l e g a l s t a n d a r d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e rS p e a ro c c u p i e d a p o s i t i o n o f t ru s t . We c o n c lu d e it d id n o t. A . L egal F ram ew ork T he G ui del i nes cont ai n a s peci al pr ovi s i on al l ow i ng cour t s t o enhanc e s ent ence s forabus e of a pos i t i on of trus t . “I f the defendantabus ed a pos i t i on of p u b lic o r p riv a te tru st, o r u se d a sp e c ial s k ill , in a m a n n e r th a t sig n ifica n tly fac i l i t at ed the comm i s s i on orconce al m entof the offens e, i ncr eas e by2 l evel s . ” U S S G § 3 B 1 .3 . T he governm entm us ts at i s fyt w o el ement s t o m eet§ 3B 1. 3, es t abl i s hi ng: ( 1) w hethert he per s on occupi es a pos i t i on of trus t , and ( 2) w hethert he pos i t i on of t rus tw as us ed t o fac i l i t at e s i gni fi cant l yt he comm i s s i on orconce al m entof the c ri m e . U S S G § 3 B 1 .3 , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. P ar r i l l a R om an , 485 F. 3d 185, 190–91 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (d isc u ss in g tw o -ste p p ro c e ss ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . An dr e ws , 484 F. 3d 4 7 6 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Mo rr is , 2 8 6 F . 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 5 (11 th C ir . 2002) . I n t hi s cas e, t he ana l y s i s fal t er s pr i m ar i l yatt he fi r s ts t ep. I n defi ni ng a pos i t i on of publ i c orpr i vat e trus t , t he G ui del i nes ’ A ppl i cat i on N o te 1 to § 3 B 1 .3 p ro v id e s th a t:“Thi s adj us t m ent , forexampl e, appl i es i n t he ca s e of a n embezzl ementof 1 a c li en t’ s fu n d s b yan att o rne yserv ing as a g u ard ian, a b an k ex ec u ti v e’s fr audul entl oan s cheme, ort he cr i m i nal s exual abus e of a pat i entbya phy s i ci an undert he gui s e of a n exami nat i on. T hi s adj us t m entdoes notappl yi n t he ca s e of an embezzl ementort heftbyan or di narybank t el l erorhot el cl erk beca us e s uch pos i t i ons ar e notchar act er i zed byt he above - des cr i bed fa ct or s . ” U SSG § 3B 1. 3, cmt . n. 1.

-6- “Publ i c orpr i vat e trus t ” r efe r s t o a po si t i on of publi c or pri vate t rust char act er iz ed by pr of

es s i onalorm anager i aldis cr et i on ( i . e. , s ubs tant i al dis cr et i onar

y j udgm entthatis or di nar i l y gi ven c on s i der abl e def er ence ) . P e rso n s h o ld in g s u c h p o sitio n s o rd in a rilya re su bjec t to sig n ifica n tly les s s u p e rv isio n th a n e m p lo y e e s w h o se re sp o n sib ili ties a re p r im a rily n o n -d is c re tio n a ry in n a tu re . U S S G § 3 B 1 . 3 , cm t. n . 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

. T he co m m entarygo es on to i l l ust rat e t he scop e of the enh ancem ent— i tapp l i es, forexampl e, t o pr ofes s i onal s l i ke l aw y er s ordoct or s , butnott o bank t el l er s or ho t el cl erks. 1 O urcas es i nt erpr et i ng t he gui del i ne make cl eart hatt he t erm “pos i t i on of t rus t ” i s a bi tof a mi s nom er . I tactual l yhas l i t t l e t o do w i t h trustw orthiness and every t hi ng t o do w i t h author i t y and dis cr et i on . O urr ece ntdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. E dw ar ds , 3 2 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2003) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng a cl erk i n an i ns ur ance company , i s ourm os tt hor ough anal y s i s of the enha ncementt o dat e. I n E dw ar ds , w e sta rte d w ith th e sim p le obs ervat i on t hatt he es t abl i s hm entof trus tand conf i dence i nher es i n m os tfr aud cas es , butt hatt he “e nhance m enti s notm eantt o appl yi n everycas e of f r aud. ” Id.T he governm entr el i es i n par ton our1992 deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. 2 Wi l l i a ms , 9 6 6 F .2 d 5 5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), w h ich id e n tifie s s e v e ra l fa c to rs to co n side r i n ap p ly ing the a b u se o f trust en h an ce m en t. T h at de cisi o n , h o w ev er, pr edat ed the s i gni fi cantm odi fi cat i ons i n t he expl anat or yA ppl i cat i on N ot e that th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n a d o p te d in 1 9 9 3 . See Edw ar ds , 325 F. 3d at1188 ( r ecogni zi ng t hatt he new l anguage i n A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1 “ d e lib e ra telyse t th e b a r a t a h ig h e r le v e l”) ; R ecc ko , 151 F. 3d at34 ( fi ndi ng t he amendm ent s emphasi zed the exi s t ence of m anage r i al di s cr et i on, t her ebyl i m i t i ng th e im p o rt o f

p rio r d e c isio n s d e fin in g p o sitio n o f tru st); Uni t ed Stat es v. Sm aw , 22 F. 3d 330 ( D . C . C i r . 1994) ( expl ai ni ng how 1993 amendm ent s affect ed the defi ni t i on and det erm i nat i on of a pos i t i on of trus t ) . I n l i ghtof the 1993 am end m ents , Wi l l i a ms i s of l i m i t ed s i gni fi canc e w hen eva l uat i ng § 3B 1. 3. -7- at1187 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Koehn , 7 4 F . 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . We em p h asize d , m o reo v er, th at th e lac k o f “ an y[] a u th o rity t o m ake s ubs t ant i al d is c re tio n a ry ju d g m e n ts ” is k e yin d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t h e e n h a n c e m e n t a p p lie s . Id. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. R ecc ko , 1 5 1 F . 3 d 2 9 , 3 1 (1st C ir . 1998) ( r ecogni zi ng “trus t ” i n § 3B 1. 3 i s a func t i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes “cr eat [i ng] t hei row n vocabul ary ” and “ defi n[i ng] t erm s i n w ay s t hatm i ghts t r i ke lay pe rso n s a s p e c u liar.” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R agl and , 7 2 F . 3 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 3 (6th C ir . 1996) ( char act er i zi ng pos i t i on of trus tas a “t erm of art ”) . “The fac tt hat[the defe ndant ] w as t rus t ed byherempl oy erw i t h s i gni fi cantr es pons i bi l i t y. . . i s not det erm i nat i ve. ” E dw ar ds , 325 F. 3d at1187. 2 B yd e fin in g a “ p o sitio n o f p u b lic o r p riv a te tru st” a s a p o sitio n o f a u th o rity ch ara cterized b ythe e x erc ise o f p rofessio n al or m an ag erial discreti o n , w e m o re acc ur at el yi dent i fyt hos e defendant s el i gi bl e fort he enha ncement . T he enhanc ementi s conce r ned w i t h per s ons i n pos i t i ons of author i t yabus i ng t hei rl ack-8-

of sup ervi si on t o co m m i tor conc eal w rongd oing; t herefore, i ti s r eser ved for tho se w i t h pr ofes s i onal orm anage r i al di s cr et i on. Such author i t yi s char act er i zed by

“ su b sta n tia l d isc re tio n a ryju d g m e n t . . . g iv e n c o n sid e ra b le d e fe re n c e ” a n d is contr as t ed aga i ns t“empl oy ees w hos e r es pons i bi l i t i es ar e pr i m ar i ly nondis cr et i onar

y i n natur e. ” U SSG § 3B 1. 3, cmt . n. 1 ( emphasi s added) . T he di s cr et i on nece s s aryt o qual i fyfort he enha ncementexi s t s w her e the per s on char ged had the author i t yt o m ake br oad ca s e- by - cas e dec i s i ons fort he o rg a n iz a tio n . E dw ar ds , 325 F. 3d at1188 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Ti oj anco , 286 F .3 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). T h is d isc re tio n re q u ire s m o re th a n e n g a g in g in m e re m in is te ri a l ta s k s d ir e c te d b ys ta n d a rd iz e d o ffic e p ro to c o ls . A c c o rd in g ly , to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t o c c u p ies a p o sitio n o f tru st, w e mustunder t ake a funct i onal anal y s i s of j ob r es pons i bi l i t i es and exa m i ne w h e th e r t h o s e d u tie s w e re m e re ly m in is te ri a l o r w e re , in fa c t, m a n a g e ri a l. I ndi cat i ons of s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i onaryj udgm entundert he § 3B 1. 3 enhanc ement i nclude t he au t ho ri t yt o en gag e i n case-by -cas e decis i on -m aking, t o setpo l i ci es, and t o gr antexce pt i ons t o governi ng pol i ci es orpr ot ocol s . T hes e fa ct or s ar e a no n-exha ust i ve, and no on e factori s di sposi t i ve o f t he an al y si s. E dw ar ds i l l us t r at es t he appl i cat i on of thes e cons i der at i ons . E m pl oy i ng a f u n c tio n a l an a ly sis , w e a n a ly z e d w h e th e r th e m a n a g e ria l d isc re tio n w a s p re se n t in t he dut i es of an hour l yw age e m pl oy ee i n t he ac count i ng di vi s i on of an a dver t i s i ng company . E dw ar ds embezzl ed over$30, 000 byfai l i ng t o pos tcert ai n cus t om er-9-

p a ym e n ts a n d th e n re -r o u tin g th o s e p a ym e n ts to h e r b o y f ri e n d ’s b a n k a c c o u n t. S h e c o v ere d h er track s b yp o sti n g fa lse cred it s o n the a cc o u n ts of the c u stom ers w hos e che cks s he di ver t ed t o herboy fr i end’ s acc ount . A bank t el l ernot i ced the di s cr epanc ybetw een the adve r t i s i ng companyas pay ee a nd t he ac countnum beron th e b a c k o f

th e c h e c k s, le a d in g to h e r a rre st. E dw ards’ s duti es i ncluded , “recei ving che cks m ai l ed in by[] cust om ers , pr epar i ng t hem for de pos i t , pos t i ng t he paym ent s t o cus t om eracc ount s and the cas h r ece i pt s j our nal , s endi ng outbi l l s , cal cul at i ng cus t om eracc ountbal ance s , and compi l i ng and forw ar di ng t o s al es per s onnel and hers upervi s or s r epor t s r efl ect i ng t hi s dat a. ” E dw ar ds , 3 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 5

– 8 6 . In a d d iti o n , E d w a rd s w a s re sp o n sib le fo r p o s tin g c re d its to c u s to m e r a c c o u n ts , b u t s h e h a d n o a u th o ri ty to g ra n t c re d its . A ppl y i ng § 3B 1. 3, w e det erm i ned her“t as ks w er e s ol el ym i ni s t er i al . ” Id. at1186. T he governm enti n t hatcas e, l i ke her e, al l eged thatE dw ar ds ’ s s peci al i zed a c c o u n tin g sk ill s, m in im a l o v e rsig h t, virtu a llye x c lu siv e c o n tro l o v e r a c c o u n ts r ece i vabl e as w el l as cus t om erbi l l i ng r ecor ds , and us e of he rpos i t i on t o conce al h er d efalca ti o n all w arran ted th e § 3 B 1 . 3 en h an ce m en t. D isag ree ing , w e w ere per s uaded thatE dw ar ds di d nothave di s cr et i on t o gr antcr edi t s her s el f i n fi ndi ng s he w as noti n a pos i t i on of trus t . She w as notfr ee t o m ake de ci s i ons r egar di ng par t i cul arexpendi tur es orot herbus i nes s choi ces i n cas e- by - cas e ci r cumst ance s or t o m a k e e x c e p t i o n s t o c o m p a n y p o l i c y. W h i l e o n l y n o m i n a l r e v i e w b y a s u p e rv is o r m a d e h e r j o b re s p o n s ib le , it r e m a in e d u ltim a te ly m in is te ri a l. See-10-

Uni t ed Stat es v. Humphr ey , 279 F. 3d 372, 379–80 ( 6t h C i r . 2002) ( “W e have pr evi ous l yes t abl i s hed thatt he l evel of di s cr et i on r athert han the amountof s upervi s i on i s t he def

i ni t i ve fa ct ori n det erm i ni ng w hethera defendanthel d and a b u s e d a p o s i t i o n o f

t ru s t . ” ) . “ O p p o r tu n i t y a n d a c c e s s d o n o te q u a t e t o a u t h o r i t y, o r t o th e k in d o f

‘s u b s ta n tia l d is c re tio n a ry ju d g m e n t’ ” re q u ir e d fo r t h e § 3 B 1 .3 e n h a n c e m e n t. E dw ar ds , 325 F. 3d a t 1 1 8 7 . In sh o rt, em p h a siz in g a n in q u iryin to th e le v e l o f

d is c re tio n , E dw ar ds tells u s to lo o k to th e e m p lo y e e ’s jo b a s it is p erfo rm ed an d n o t ho w itloo k s o n p ap er. Fi nal l y , i f the defendantoccupi es a pos i t i on of trus t , w e tur n t o s t ep tw o of t he § 3B 1. 3 enhanc ementt o det erm i ne i f the pos i t i on w as us ed i n a “mannert hat s i g n i fi c a n t l yfa c i l i t a t e d t h e c o mm i s s i o n o rc o n c e a l me n to f t h e o ffe n s e . ” US S G § 3B 1. 3. T hats t ep i s s at i s fi ed w her e the per s on’ s dut i es al l ow t he more effect i ve comm i s s i on of the cr i m e by“maki ng t he det ect i on of the offens e ort he d e fe n d a n t’s re sp o n sib ili tyfo r th e o ffe n se m o re d ifficu lt. ” U S S G § 3 B 1 .3 , cm t. n. 1. B . A p p ly in g th e F u n c tio n a l A n a ly sis G i ven thi s l egal fr amew or k, w e conc l ude Spearl acke d t he s ubs t ant i al d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityre q u ire d fo r th e G u id e lin e s’ e n h a n c e m e n t. 1 . S p e a r’s D u ties L a c kS u b sta n tia l D isc re tio n a ry A u th o rity-11-

W e s t ar tw i t h Spear ’ s j ob as an Exam i nat i ons A s s i s t ant . A l t hough t he r ecor d does notcont ai n gr eatdet ai l , t he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed pr i m ar i l yon w r i t t en p e rfo rm a n c e e v a lu a tio n s S p e a r’ s m a n a g e rs u s e d to a s s e s s h e r j o b re s p o n s ib iliti e s . T he r el evantper for m ance eval uat i on i ncl uded s even c at egor i es of dut i es for w h ich S p ea r w as re sp o n sible. F o r pu rpo ses o f th e e n h an ce m en t, the d istri ct co u rt focus ed on fourcat egor i es : ( 1) “A s s i s t s i n devel opi ng pr act i ces , pr ocedur es , and w o rk p a ttern s fo r th e w o rk o f th e c ler ica l u n it an d p ro p o se s a p p ro p ria te c h a n g e s;” (2) “C on du ct s on-going an al y si s of w ork l oad data, produ ct i on s, and otherreport s; det erm i nes w hetherpr ocedur es ar e bei ng fol l ow ed and makes s ugges t i ons for i m pr ovement s ; ” ( 3) “Per form s l i ai s on [s i c] and ans w er s i nqui r i es fr om i ndi vi dual s , at t or ney s , orgr oups fr om t he gene r al publ i c and f r om ot hers ervi ce and no n-service or gan i zat i on s and p rofessi on al con du ct ; ” and (4) “C oll ect s, r ecor ds , ver i fi es , s afe guar ds and depos i t [s i c] fee s for appl i cat i ons . ” Sent . T r . at 2 6

– 2 8 . I n eval uat i ng t hes e fourcat egor i es , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatSpear exer ci s ed a pos i t i on of trus t . W hi l e w e agr ee the courtas s es s ed the corr ectj ob cat egor i es , w e di s agr ee w i t h i t s concl us i on. N one of thes e part i cul ardut i es im p lic a te s s u b s ta n tia l d is c re tio n a ry a u th o ri ty. Sever al r eas ons s uppor tourconcl us i on. Fi r s t , t he fa ctthatSpear “as s i s t [ed] ” and “ m a[de ] s ugges t i ons fori m pr ovement s , ” ( cat egor i es 1 and 2) s i m pl ym eans t hatSpearas s i s t ed her supe ri ors and m ade sug gest i on s t o them .-12-

N ot hi ng i n t he eva l uat i ons s ugges t s Spearexer ci s ed i ndi vi dual author i t yover par t i cul arappl i cat i ons . N ei t hercat egoryi ndi cat es Spearw as i n a pos i t i on t o s et pr ot ocol ort o departfr om pr ot ocol s al r eadys etbyot her s . A n empl oy ee w ho pl ace s s ugges t i ons i n a box does nots t and on the s ame se nt enci ng gr ound as t he empl oy ee w ho empt i es t he box and de t erm i nes w hi ch s ugges t i ons w i l l be im p lem en ted o r disca rde d . T h e fo rm er’s d u ti es a re m inist erial, w h il e the lat ter’s c o n s titu te a p o s itio n o f tru s t. N ext, t he tas ks ou t l i ned i n category3— “[c]ol l ect s, recor ds, veri fi es, s a fe g u a rd s a n d d e p o s it [ s ic ] fe e s fo r a p p lic a tio n s ”

— a re s im ila rl ym in is te ri a l. Fi nal l y , t he dut i es l i s t ed i n cat egory4— act i ng as a l i ai s on and ans w er i ng ques t i ons fr om t he publ i c— come t he cl os es tt o m anage r i al di s cr et i on i ndi cat i ng a p o sit ion o f trust. B u t th ere is no ind icati o n in the rec o rd th at S p ea r’s r es pons i bi l i t i es i n t hi s r egar d l eftherw i t h deci s i on- m aki ng author i t yordi s cr et i on o v e r th e im m ig ra tio n a p p lica tio n s th a t cr o ss e d h e r d e sk in a m a n n e r th a t co u ld fac i l i t at e hercr i m e. I n s hor t , Spear ’ s embezzl ement s ar e notchar act er i zed a s fl ow i ng fr om any a u th o rityo n S p e a r’s p a rt, n o r d id h e r jo b a s E x a m in a tio n s A ss ista n t sig n ifica n tly fac i l i t at e the cr i m e ori m pede i t s det ect i on. I n fac t , Spearempl oy ed a c rude m e th o d o f

d e p o sitin g m o n e yo rd e rs th a t w e re su b m itt e d w ith a p p lica tio n s to U SC I S i nt o herow n bank ac countand then thr ow i ng aw ayt he ac company i ng a p p lica tio n s. A f

ter c o m p lain ts f

ro m a p p lica n ts, th e sc h e m e w a s p ro m p tly-13-

u n c o v e re d . N o e v id e n c e e x ists th a t S p e a r u se d a n yd isc re tio n a rya u th o rityto fac i l i t at e orconce al hercr i m e. She di d nothave di s cr et i on t o appr ove ordeny ap p li ca ti o n s, n o r do es th e re co rd sh o w sh e c o u ld rejec t app li ca ti o n s tha t w ere i ncompl et e ori nacc ur at e. H eronl yauthor i t yw as t o pr oces s new appl i cat i ons and putt hem i n t he pi pel i ne fors ubs t ant i ve r evi ew . H ert heftw as acc om pl i s hed by bei ng i n t he r i ghtpl ace att he r i ghtt i m e, i . e. , oppor tuni t yand ac ces s , notby e x e rc isin g th e c lo a k o f a u th o rityto sta v e o ff

in q u iryo r d e c isio n -m a k in g p o w e r to cov er hert racks. T he di s t r i ctcour tarr i ved ata di ffe r entr es ul tbyappl y i ng t he G ui del i nes i ncons i s t ent l yw i t h t he rul i ng of E dw ar ds . T h e d istric t co u rt m a d e th e a p p ro p ria te i nqui r ybyr evi ew i ng Spear ’ s dut i es t o det erm i ne w hethers he hel d a pos i t i on of t ru s t . I tt h e n c o mp a r e d S p e a r ’ s d u t i e s t o t h o s e o f a b a n k t e l l e ra n d h o t e l c l e r k , t wo p o s itio n s m e n tio n e d b y th e G u id e lin e s a s n o t in v o lv in g a p o s itio n o f tru s t. See S e n t e n c i n g T r . a t2 6

– 2 7 ( r e fe r r i n g t o S p e a r ’ s d u t i e s a s “ m o r e t h a n j u s ts i m p l y a bank t el l er ; ” “[ s ] om ethi ng m or e than s i m pl ybei ng a t el l erorhot el cl erk, cert ai nl y ; ” and “ [a] gai n, t hati s s om ethi ng m or e than the typi cal hot el cl erk or bank cl erk”) . T he comm ent aryfor§ 3B 1. 3 cont empl at es a cont i nuum of di s cr et i on fr om bank t el l ert o pr ofes s i onal . Som ew her e al ong t he cont i nuum an empl oy ee moves fr om m i ni s t er i al t o di s cr et i onaryi n t he per form ance of j ob d u tie s .O urdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i am s on , 5 3 F . 3 d 1 5 0 0 (10 th C ir . 3 1 9 9 5 ), is n o t to th e c o n tra ry . In a n a ly z in g a n o fficia l o a th in th e § 3 B 1 .3 c o n tex t, w hi l e ac know l edgi ng t he i m por t ance of a pl edge, w e found the defendant occupi ed a pos i t i on of trus tbeca us e he w as a pol i ce offi cer , notbeca us e he t ook a n o a th . Id. at1525. -14- B u t i n stead o f a sk ing w h ethe r S p ea r’s du ti es in clud ed task s m o re so p h istica ted th a n th e typ ica l b a n k telle r o r h o tel c ler k , the d istric t co u rt sh o u ld h a v e a sk e d w h e th e r th o se d u ties g a v e S p e a r f u n c tio n a l m anager i alorpr of es s i onal dis cret i on — such as t he respon si bil i t yt o (1) di fferent i at e case-by -cas e si tuati on s, ( 2) s etpol i ci es and pr ot ocol s , ( 3) di ver ge fr om pol i ci es and pr ot ocol s ( t her eby ind icati n g m an ag erial or p rofessio n al discre ti o n )— o r w h ethe r he r du ti es w ere pr i m ar i l ys ubj ectt o non- di s cr et i onaryrul es ( t her ebyi ndi cat i ng t he mi ni s t er i al or c le ri c a l n a tu re o f

h e r w o rk ). I n appl y i ng t he enha ncement , t he di s t r i ctcour tal s o r el i ed hea vi l yon a l et t er fro m a U S C IS su p erv isor labe li n g S p ea r’s po sit ion as o n e o f trust. T h e c o n clus o ry opi ni on of a s upervi s ordoes nots ubs t i tut e fort he func t i onal anal y s i s r equi r ed by E dw ar ds (“job ti tl es th em selv es d o n o t con tr o l [th e p o sit ion o f trust i n q u iry ]; ac tual d u ti es a n d au tho ri ze d ac ti v it ies d o , ” 3 2 5 F . 3 d at 11 8 7 ). E v en so , the c o u rt found r el evantt he l et t er ’ s emphasi s on Spear ’ s oath t o per form t he dut i es of her offi ce w i t h honor . B ut , agai n, a pos i t i on of trus tforpurpos es of § 3B 1. 3 tur ns upon di s cr et i onaryauthor i t y , noton one’ s ver aci t yora pl edge t o ful fi l l a pos i t i on h o n e s t l y. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Hi rs ch , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ An

3 abus e of trus tenhanc ementm aynotbe i m pos ed on a de fenda ntconvi ct ed of f r aud-15-

so lel yb ec au se o f a v iolati o n o f a lega l ob li g ati o n to b e truthf u l and a v ict im ’s reli an ce o n a m isr ep rese n tat ion . ”). Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcour tw as i nfl uence d byt he harm t hatSpeari nfl i ct ed on t he unfortunat e vi ct i m s w hos e appl i cat i ons cr os s ed herdes k. Spearw as t hr ow i ng

“ a m o n k e yw re n c h o f

h u g e p ro p o rtio n in to th e g e a rs th a t g rin d th ro u g h th is B y zant i ne i m m i gr at i on pr oces s . . . . ” Sent . T r . at29. W hi l e s uch cons i der at i ons are ent i rel yapp ropri at e w hen app l y i ng t he 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) sent encing factors , i ti s i nappr opr i at e t o us e the r es ul t s of Spear ’ s w r ongdoi ng i n deci di ng w hethert he § 3 B 1 .3 e n h a n c e m e n t ap p lies . N o th in g in th e lan g u a g e o f § 3 B 1 .3 o r its appl i cat i on not es l ook t o t he out come of t he mi s conduct , r atheri ti s t he pos i t i on and i t s r es pons i bi l i t i es t hatm at t eri n t hi s i nqui r y . E ven a l ow erl evel empl oy ee can w r eak ha voc. I n s um , t he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yi dent i fi ed Spear ’ s dut i es as t he appr opr i at e obj ectof i nqui ryforw hethers he occ upi ed a pos i t i on of trus t , butt he cour tgui ded thati nqui r ybyappl y i ng t he w r ong l egal s t andar d. T he pr oper s t andar d as ks w hetherSpear ’ s dut i es w er e bounded bypr edet erm i ned rul es and pr ot ocol s s o as t o be mi ni s t er i al orw hethers he had the s ubs t ant i al fr eedom i n her d u tie s th a t a ri s e s f

ro m d is c re tio n a ry a u th o ri ty sig n if y in g a p o s itio n o f

tru s t. A p p ly in g th is s tan d a rd , sh e d id n o t. 2. Spear ’s D ut i es A r e Si m i l art o Those i n E dw ar ds-16-

Seeki ng t o di s t i ngui s h ourcas e l aw , the governm entur ges us t o r ecogni ze t hr ee di s t i nct i ons betw een Spea r ’ s cr i m e and E dw ar ds : ( 1) onl yt he empl oy erw as hur ti n E dw ar ds , ( 2) Spear ’ s vi ol at i on i nvol ved governm ents ervi ces , and ( 3) t he empl oy ee i n E dw ards had no authori t yt o p ostcredi t s t o acco un t s so she w as a condui tt hatdi d notper form “the [f i nanci al ] ver i fi cat i on and s afe guar di ng funct i on as w el l . ” A pl e. A ns w erB r . at20. W e di s agr ee thatt hes e di s t i nct i ons m ake a di ffe r ence her e. Fi r s t , as w e expl ai ned, t he cons equenc es of Spear ’ s act i ons ar e notr el evant i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o appl yt he § 3B 1. 3 enhanc ement . N ow her e i n i t s t ext d o e s th e § 3 B 1 .3 e n h a n c e m e n t su g g e st d iffe rin g sta n d a rd s w h e n th e c rim e h u rts on l yt he em ploy er and n ot i t s cust om ers . W hi l e the r el at i ons hi p t o t he vi ct i m can in s o m e in s ta n c e s b o ls te r t h e tru s t a s s e s s m e n t, s ee, e. g. , Hi rs ch , 239 F. 3d at 2 2 7

– 2 8 ; United S tates v. Hart , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 7

– 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), the m ere i dent i t yof the vi ct i m i s notpr obat i ve. N ow her e i n E dw ar ds di d w e r el yon s uch a pr opos i t i on as par tof ourj us t i fi cat i on fornotappl y i ng t he enha ncement . T he emphasi s i ns t ead i s on w hethert he pos i t i on w as us ed t o s i gni fi cant l yfac i l i t at e or conce al t he cr i m e bec aus e of the fr eedom enj oy ed bydi s cr et i onarydeci s i on m a k e rs . S econ d, t he g ov ernm ent i nti m at es that the u nique na ture of U S C IS as a governm entent i t y , i n par t i cul arhavi ng a monopol yon pr ovi di ng i m m i gr at i on s e r v i c e s , d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e s i tu a t i o n h e r e f r o m E dw ar ds . B utt he l anguage of-17-

§ 3 B 1 . 3 d o es n o t dist ing u ish b etw ee n p ri v ate o r pu b li c p o sit ion s o f trust— b o th are tre a ted e q u a lly

— n o r d o e s th e c o m m e n tar yd istin g u ish b e tw e e n p u b lic a n d p riv a te sect or vi olat i on s. I n a r el at ed compar i s on, t he di s t r i ctcour tal s o anal ogi zed t o pos t al s ervi ce empl oy ees , w ho qual i fyforpos i t i ons of trus tunderA ppl i cat i on N ot e 2 of § 3B 1. 3’ s comm ent ary . Sent . T r . at25. ( “M s . Spearoccupi ed a pos i t i on - - i f a U ni t ed St at es pos t al empl oy ee hol ds a pos i t i on of trus t , M s . Spearhel d a hi gher pos i t i on of trus t . ”) . Post al s ervi ce e m pl oy ees , how ever , ar e an e xpr es s exce pt i on to th e m a n a g e ria l o r p ro fe ss io n a l d isc re tio n ru le a n d sh o u ld n o t b e u se d to a n a lo g iz e to w h e th e r t h e d e fe n d a n t o c c u p ie d a p o s itio n o f tru s t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Sm aw , 2 2 F . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 2

– 3 3 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). B efor e amended i n 2005, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1 of § 3B1. 3 r ead, “N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he pr ece di ng par agr aph, beca us e of the s peci al natur e of the U n ited S tate s m a il an a dju stm e n t fo r a n a b u se o f a p o sitio n o f

tru st w ill a p p lyto anyempl oy ee of

t he U . S. Post al Ser vi ce w ho engage s i n t he theftordes t ruct i on of undel i ver ed U ni t ed St at es m ai l . ” The 2005 am endments t ruck the l anguage des cr i bi ng t he s peci al natur e of the pos t al s ervi ce i n r es pons e t o t he I dent i t yT heft Penal t yE nhance m entA ct , Publ i c Law 108- 275, 118 St at . 831 ( 2004) , w hi ch dir ect ed the C om m i ssi on t o ad d en han cem ents for i den t i t yt heft t o § 3B 1. 3. In so d o i n g , t h e Co mm i s s i o n p a r t i t i o n e d o u tAp p l i c a t i o n No t e 2 fo rl i s t i n g t h e t wo c a teg o rie s o f

d e fe n d a n ts th a t w o u ld re c e iv e th e e n h a n c e m e n t notw i ths tandi ng t heS p e a r’s in a b ili tyto a p p ro v e a p p lica tio n s is sig n ifica n t h e re . If sh e c o u ld 4 appr ove ordenyappl i cat i ons , t hen s he mi ghtexhi bi tt he type of de ci s i on- m aki ng a u th o ri ty su ffic ie n t to q u a lif yfo r t h e e n h a n c e m e n t. See Un itedS ta tes v . B ritt , 3 8 8 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 1 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), j udgm entvacated by 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 1 1 (20 0 5 ), and r ei ns tat ed i n r el evantpar tby 437 F. 3d 1103 ( 11t h C i r . 2006) ( uphol di ng appl i cat i on of § 3B 1. 3 w her e cl erk forSoci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on had d is c re tio n to a p p ro v e a p p lic a tio n s fo r S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A c c o u n t N u m b e r c a rd s ). -18- fa c t th e yw o u ld n o t o th e rw ise q u a lifyu n d e r th e sta n d a rd s s e t b yA p p lica tio n N o te 1 a s e m p lo y e e s in a p o sitio n o f tru st. T h is m e a n s p o sta l em p lo y e e s a re su bjec t to t he enha ncementfordi ffe r entr eas ons t han defendant s w ho m eett he r equi s i t es of A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1. T her efor e, pos t al empl oy ees s houl d notbe us ed i n a compar at i ve ana l y s i s t hatat t empt s t o det erm i ne w hethera defendantw i el ded s u ffic ie n t p ro fe s s io n a l o r m a n a g e ri a l d is c re tio n to q u a lif yfo r t h e § 3 B 1 .3 e n h a n c e m e n t. Fi nal l y , Spearw as no m or e orl es s r es pons i bl e foroffi ce moni es t han the defe ndanti n E dw ar ds . She di d nothave a ut hor i t yt o di s pos e of, acc ept , orr ej ect appl i cat i ons , j us tas E dw ar ds had no author i t yt o pos tcr edi t s . She onl yhad the 4 pow ert o det erm i ne w hetheran appl i canthad che cked the nec es s aryboxes , fi l l ed in the n ec essa ryb lank s, p rov ided the re q u isi te i n fo rm ati o n , an d p aid th e n ec essa ry fe e s . I n s um , Spearoccupi ed a pos i t i on s i m i l art o t he defendanti n E dw ar ds . W hi l e thei rconductw as cert ai nl yabus i ve, byvi r tue of thei rj ob r es pons i bi l i t i es n e ith e r q u a lifie s fo r a n e n h a n c e m e n t fo r a b u s e o f tru s t u n d e r § 3 B 1 .3 . A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n appl y i ng t he enha ncementi n t hi s i ns t ance .-19-

C . R eas onabl enes s of t he Sent ence Spearal s o chal l enges t he r eas onabl enes s of hers ent ence . She cl ai m s t hat the d istri ct co u rterred b y(1) se n tenc ing h er to tw o m o n ths a b o v e the ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange a nd empl oy i ng i m pr opercons i der at i ons i n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on, a n d (2 ) fa ilin g to p ro v id e n o tic e b e fo re im p o s in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t. Sent enci ng i n t hi s cas e occ ur r ed befor e ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v . A ten c io , 476 F. 3d 1099, 1103–04 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) , w hi ch hel d t hatadvanc e not i ce i s r equi r ed forvary i ng above orbel ow t he r el evants ent enci ng r ange. Si nce w e ar e r ever s i ng t he appl i cabi l i t yof the abus e of trus tenhanc ementunder § 3B 1. 3, w e nee d notr evi ew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hers ent ence ort he l ack o f no t i ce regardi ng t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s su a sp o n te v a ri a n c e . O n r e m a n d , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tw i l l a p p l y A ten c io and not i fyt he part i es i f the cour tpl ans t o s ent ence above orbel ow t he r el evants ent enci ng r ange s ugges t ed by th e G u id e lin e s . I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e R E V E R SE t he di s t r i ctcour tfi ndi ng t hatSpearoccupi ed a pos i t i on of trus ts ubj ectt o t he enha ncementof § 3B 1. 3 of the U . S. Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s a n d R E M A N D to th e d istric t co u rt fo r se n ten c in g c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on.