[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________ _______________ No. 12

- 14483 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Do cket No. 3:11

- cr - 00236

- TJC

- MCR

- 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus THOMAS WIMBERLY, LISA WIMBERLY, Defendants

- Appellants.

________________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (February 26, 2013) Before PRYOR , MARTIN and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Thomas Wimberly appeals his sentence of one year and one day, and his sister, Lisa Wimberly , appeal s her sentence of 33 months of imprisonment, for

Case: 12-14483 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 Page: 1 of 52 conspiring to commit wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1349. T he Wimberlys argue that they should not be held accountable for losses caused by their co conspira tors i n which they were not directly involved and that t heir sentences are unreasonable

. Thomas also argues that he was entitled to a red uction of his offense level for his
min imal role in the conspiracy. We affirm. The district court did not err in determining the amount of loss attributable to the Wimberly s. A defendant is responsible for loss that “the defendant knew or, under the circumstances, reasonably should have known, was a potential result of the offense

. ” U nited S tates S entencing G uidelines Manual § 2B1.1 c m t. n.3(A)(iv) (Nov. 2011)

. The Wimber lys participated in a conspiracy to negotiate altered personal checks, and t he district court did not clearly err in finding that the Wimberlys were responsible for the losses attributable to checks bearing the names
of and negotiated by their coconspirators. The Wimberlys admitted , by “fail[ing] to object to [the] allegations of fact in [ their presentence report s ],” United States v. Wade , 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006), that the co conspirators shared information about how to ob tain personal checks that they altered by eras ing the

m agnetic i nk c haracter r ecognition line ; de cided to negotiate the checks in stores

us ing a verification system provided by Certegy Check Services, Inc., that was unable to detect the alteration; and oft en traveled together to negotiate the checks. The Wimberlys individually negotiated hundreds of fraudulent checks, and they

Case: 12-14483 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 Page: 2 of 53 knew in part, and reasonably c ould have foreseen , the extent to which their coconspirators would act likewise. See United States v. McCrimmon , 362 F.3d 725, 731 (11th Cir. 2004); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2. T he Wimberlys accompanied their coconspirators to negotiate fraudulent checks , which Lisa did

even after being released on bond , and Thomas admitted to fed eral agents that he benefitted financially “ from the execution of the scheme, while knowing [its] nature and purpose.” Thomas argues, for the first time, that the government failed to prove that the conspiracy caused a loss of $231,640.90 , but Agent Stephe n Albano testified
ab out determin ing the loss using s preadsheet s prepare d by Certegy that listed the checks negotiated by the conspirators at different stores

. And Thomas does not challenge the reliability of Albano’s testimony or the reliance of the district court on that testimony. See United States v. Maxwell , 579 F.3d 1282 , 1305 ( 11 th Cir

. 2009 ). Thomas also, for the first time, argues that t he district court failed to make
sp ecific findings about his participation in the conspiracy, but we disagree. T he district cour t was entitled to reject Thomas’s arguments that he was less culpable than his coconspirators and to base its decision on the undisputed information in
Thomas’s presentence report. See United States v. Bradley , 644 F.3d 1213 , 1293 ( 11 th Cir

. 2011 ).

Case: 12-14483 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 Page: 3 of 54 The district court did not clearly err by denyi ng Thomas a min imal role reduction. A defendant is entitled to a four

- point reduction of his offense level only if he is “plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of the group , ” as evidenced by a “lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a)
& cmt. n.4. Thomas knowingly participated in a conspiracy to negotiate fraudul ent checks, negotiated more than 100 checks individually, aided his coconspirators , and profited from their misdeeds. As found by the dis trict court, even if Thomas

were “less involved than some others,” he failed to introduce any evidence that his
conduc t was the least significant in the conspiracy. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the Wimberlys

. Over the course of a year, t he Wimberlys and three coconspirators negotiated more than 1,000 fraudulent checks at various stores in two states that resulted in a loss exceeding $200,000. With respect to Thomas, the district court reasonably decided to vary 15 months below t he advisory sentencing range of 27 to 33 months on the grounds that Thomas was “substantively less involved th an some of the big players” but involved “not just in a miniscule basis” and that he had 36 prior convictions for crimes ranging from burglary and grand theft to the possession and sale of drugs. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thomas ’s sentence of 12 months an d one day was within the sentencing range that he requested, and was far less than the

Case: 12-14483 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 Page: 4 of 55 maximum statutory te rm of 20 years of imprisonment. See United States v. Winingear , 422 F.3d 1241 , 1246 ( 11 th Cir

. 2005 ). With respect to Lisa, the district
court impo sed a sentence within her advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment, which we ordinarily expect to be reasonable. See United States v. Talley , 431 F.3d 784 , 788 ( 11 th Cir

. 2005 ). The district court rejected Lisa’s arguments for leniency based on motherhood and her religious background and reasonably determined that a sentence of 33 months of imprisonment would best address her role as an “active member, if not the most active member” in the “fairly brazen and fairl y organized” c onspiracy, her recidivism and disregard for the terms of her release on bond, and her criminal record

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Lisa argues that the district court erroneously “imputed a criminal history to her based on her mere arrests alo ne,” but the district court was entitled to
consider Lisa’s 20 arrests for offenses involving fraud as well her nine convictions in Florida courts for offenses that included petit theft and presenting worthless checks

. Id. § 3553(a)(1). The Wimberlys’ sentences are reasonable.
We AFFIRM the Wimberlys’ sentences. Case: 12-14483 Date Filed: 02/26/2013 Page: 5 of 5