FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 1, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1176 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00050 -CR- 4-RH -W CS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W ILLIAM J OSHUA BOYD STET SON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Norther

n District of F lorida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 1, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and A N D E RS O N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant W ill iam Jos huaBo y d S te tso n a

ppe al s hi s sp lit
se nte nc e of

f ive m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t and f

ive m onths’ hom e de te nti on f or co nspi ra cy

to co m m it fr au d and f

ra ud i n c onne ct ionw ithone or m or e co unt er fe it2

cred itcard s, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 3 71 , 10 29 (a)( 1) , (b) (2 ) an d (c ) an d 2 . No
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. St et son’ s a

ppe al tur ns o n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n of the a m ount

of loss for sentencing purposes. Under U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), if a loss is m ore than $30, 000 but

$70 , 000 or

le ss, the ba se of

fe nse le ve l i s in cr ea se d by 6 l ev el s; i f the loss is m ore than $10,000 b ut $30 ,000 or less, the base of fense level is increa sed by 4. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se t the a m ount of int en de d lo ss f

ro m the the ft and fr au dul en t us e of

c re dit c ar d dataa t $4 2, 942. T he a ct ua l l oss f ro m the use of

the da taw as $10 , 763. 43. S te tso n arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e nga ge d inr an k speculation and com

m itted clear e rror when it calculated the am ountof intended los s. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s am ou ntof l os s d et erm in at io n fo r cl ear e rro r. U nit ed S ta te s v. N ost ar i- Sh am loo , 255 F
. 3d 1 290, 129 1 ( 11 Ci r. 200 1)
. “ If the th intended lo ss due to th e offe nse is greater than the loss actually caused, the court
m ay use the am ountof the intended los s for sentencing purpo ses.” Id.; se e U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1, c m

t. n. 3(A) (“ loss is the greater of actual loss or intended l o s s . ” )
. Th e g o v e rn men tb e ar s th e b u r d e no f p r o v i n g th e a mo u n to f

l o s s b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , se e U nit ed S ta te s v. Co ve r, 199 F
. 3d 1 270, 127 6 (1 1 Ci r. 200 0) ; and this bur de n m ust be satis fi ed

w ith“ re lia

ble and s pe ci fi c th3

ev ide nc e. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. S ep ulv ed a, 115 F
. 3d 8 82, 890 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7) th (quot at ionom itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ay not spe cu la te about

f ac ts whic h w oul d pe rm it a m or e se ve re se nte nc e unde r the gui de lin es , but an in te nde d lo ss calculation need not be m ade w ith precision. See United State s v. D om ingu ez, 109 F.3d 675 , 676 (11 Cir. 1997 ). A nd the sentencin g guid elines com m entary th pr ovi de s e xpr es sly

that the dis tr ic t c ourt “ ne ed onl y m ak e a re as ona

ble e sti m at e of the los s;” U
. S. S. G
. 2B 1. 1 c m t. n. 3( C) ; be ca

use the se nte nc ing j udge is uni que ly posi tio ne d to a sse ss the e vid en ce and e sti m at e los s, that e sti m at e is e nti tle d to ap pr op ria te de fere nc e. Id
. T he P SI ha d c al cu la te d in te nde d lo ss at $1 47, 000 ba se d onthe pr obatio n of fi ce r’ s c al cu la tio n of

the a ggr eg at e cr ed it lim it ap pli ca ble to the f

ra udul en tly obtained accounts
. In Nostari- Sham loo, 255 F.3d at 1291, we said that a district
co urt c om

m its no e rr or

w he n it de te rm ine s th e am ount

of int en de d lo ss b as ed

on the tot al li ne of

c re dit the de fe ndant c oul d a cc es s, e spe ci al ly w he n th e de fe ndant pr es en ts n o e vid en ce of

ac ontrary

int en t. B as ed

on t es tim ony

of S te tso n’ s c odefendant, the district court concluded that an am ountless than the credit lim it --
ana m ount

that w oul d be r ea ch ed

w ith in a bil lin g c y cl e or

be fo re the c ar d is
canc el le d - - w as r ea sona

ble
. B as ed

on the m ax im

um a ct ua l us e of tw o c ar ds, the district court estim ated that $390 0 was a goodindication of how m uch a car dStetson argues that the re cord suppor ts a conc lusion only

that 10 car ds were cre ated. Eve n if the 1 number of a ccounts wa s 10, using the $3,900 per c ard c alculate d by the district court, the intende d loss would be $39,000 and still above the guideline threshold for a six -leve l increa se. Th e c o- de fe nd ant a dmi tte d to re ta ini ngtw o c ard s; h e e xpla ine d th at he int e nd e d to buy a pla sma 2 t el ev i s i o n wi th one and a digital c amer a with the other . Stetson maintains that thos e two ca rds su pp or t no mor e tha

n $ 30 00 of

int e nd e d lo ss. 4 co uld be use d. U sin g 11 c ar ds a s th e num be r of c ar ds o n whic h dataw as sto le n, 1 th e d is tri ctco ur t ca lc ul at edth e in te nd edlo ss at $ 42 ,94 2. Stetson argues that the dist rict court’ s calculations were m ere

“ gue sst im at es . ” S te tso n po int s to te sti m ony that hi s c o- de fe ndant i nte nde d on ly $150 0 use on each card, and never m ore than $3,000. But that testim ony wa s co ntr ad ic te d by

the a ct ua l us e of $3, 897 an d $3 , 902 on tw o c ar ds, and b y the c ode fe ndant’ s st at em en ts tha t he ke pt n o r ec or ds and w oul d us e som e card s un til they we nt “ dead.” W ith respect to six cards that had no actual use, Stetson argues no i nte nde d us e shou ld a

ppl y be ca use the c o- de fe ndant t es tif ie d th at tho se c ar ds
w e r e d e s tr o ye dan dth a tth e e n c o d e r u s e dt o c r e a t e th e c ar d s wa s th r o w naw ay. 2 Bu t t es tim ony

a lso sho w ed

that, if the c ar ds w er e de str oy ed , the c o- de fe ndant
re ta ine d th e da taw hic h w oul d a llo whim to re cr eate the c ar ds. A ft er he ar ing the testim ony and viewing the evidence, the district court found it unreasonable to say the int en de d lo ss o n th e unus ed c ar ds w as z er o; the c ar ds w er e take n, c opi ed and
en co de d s o t ha t t he y

co ul d b e u se d.5

W e se e no c le ar

e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s lo ss c al cu la tio n f or se nte nc ing purpos es. The district court based its calculation on reliable and specific evidence, in cl ud in g t es ti m on y

for m Ste ts on ’s co- de fen da ntan d fr om an in ve st ig at in g o ffi cer. Given inconsist encies in the co-defendant’ s testim ony , the district court discredited testim ony

that the co-defendant abandoned his intent to u se the other cards. A lthou gh the evidence presented was not conclusive abou t the exact
am ount of int en de d lo ss, the S en te nc ing Guid el ine s r equir e onl y ar ea sona

ble estim ate. U .S .S .G . § 2B1. 1, cm t n.3(C)
. AFFIRMED.