## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 15 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CLYDE WAYNE MELTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-6028

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. CR-96-86-A)

On the briefs: O. Ronald McGee, of O.Ronald McGee & Associates, P. C., Ponca City, Oklahoma and Kenneth E. Holmes and James A. Schaffe r, of Holmes & Schaffer, Ponca City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. Patrick M. Ryan, United States Attorney and Teresa Black, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Ap pellee.

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR , Chief Judge.1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- Clyde Wayne Melton pled guilty to one count of cons piracy to violate federal counterfeiting statutes and was sentenced t o twenty-seven months in prison. On appeal, he contends the district court improperly enhanced his sentence on the basis of coconspirators’ conduct. We agree, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. 1

I The record of Mr. Melton’s plea proceeding and sent encing reveals the following undisputed facts. On April 3, 1996, JohnDelaney, a convicted counterfeiter, met with Ronnie Sims and Keene Edenf ield in Amarillo, Texas, to discuss a plan to print counterfeit Federal Reserve notes in Oklahoma City. Mr. Sims agreed to finance the operation and Mr. Edenfi eld agreed to distribute the counterfeit money. Mr. Edenfield was a confidentia l government informant and notified the Secret Service. Mr. Delaney was put u nder surveillance, and was observed making preparations to set up the printing equipment. Mr. Delaney recruited Mr. Melton, who agreed to hel p locate a suitable building and to loan Mr. Delaney a truck and an emp loyee to help move-3-

equipment. Agents observed Mr. Delaney and Mr. Mel ton’s employees transporting printing equipment to Mr. Delaney’s ap artment. Mr. Melton found a building and the equipment was to be moved into it on May 2, 1996. On May 1 federal agents arrested Mr. Melton and Mr. Delaney after they were observed removing tracking devices which the agents had plac ed on their vehicles. After his arrest, Mr. Delaney worked actively with the Secret Service to set up a reverse sting operation in order to further in vestigate Mr. Sims, the Texas investor. Pursuant to this operation, the governme nt provided a building, bought the supplies, and secured a press. The operation u ltimately printed over $30 million in counterfeit money, none of which was dis tributed. Mr. Melton did not participate in any of this activity. The governmen t admits that Mr. Melton never had any contact with either Mr. Sims or Mr. Edenfie ld, and that he had no part in deciding the amount to be printed during the sting operation. The presentence report recommended a sixteen-level increase in Mr. Melton’s base offense level based on the $30 millio n in counterfeit bills printed by the sting operation after his arrest. Mr. Melto n objected to the enhancement, arguing that his role in the conspiracy ended when he was arrested on May 1, and that he should not be held accountable at sentencin g for the amount of money printed by Mr. Delaney pursuant to the sting.-4-

The government originally agreed with Mr. Melton. Counsel for the government stated at the sentencing hearing that “[ f]or all practical purposes, on May One, when Mr. Melton was arrested, his involvem ent stopped with this entire situation.” Aplt. App. at 27. Counsel further stated:

There’s some confusion as to exactly who said the 3 0 million or what, but all of this was, I think, arrived at a fter Mr. Melton had ceased to be involved with Mr. Delaney. And of cou rse, he had no involvement with Sims, the financier of it, nor wit h the other informant . . . , who’s in Texas. . . . And I woul d submit that Mr. Melton didn’t really have anything, no control overit, how they arrived at the 30 million, or the supplies or renti ng of the place. And I say quite candidly that the government supplied t he place to carry out the sting operation . . . , bought the supplies , secured the press. Id. at 28. Nonetheless, the district court overruled Mr. Melton’s objection and found that the production of the $30 million in cou nterfeit funds was part of the conspiracy and that the printing of a large amount was reasonably foreseeable even though Mr. Melton did not participate in deter mining the amount.

II We review the sentencing court’s application of the guidelines de novo and its fact findings under the clearly erroneous stand ard. United States v. Morales , 108 F.3d 1213, 1225 (10th Cir. 1997). The governme nt bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of coconspirators is to be attributed to the defendant for sentencing pu rposes. Id. at 1226.-5-

Under the guideline applicable to the offense of co nspiracy, the base offense level is determined by the guideline for th e substantive offense plus the adjustments for that guideline which “can be establ ished with reasonable certainty.” USSG § 2X1.1(a). The base offense lev el for counterfeiting violations is nine. Id. § 2B5.1(a). The guideline further provides that i f the face value of the counterfeit items is over $2,000, the offense level is increased by reference to the table applicable to fraud offenses in USSG § 2F1.1. That table, in turn, provides that offenses involving $30 milli on are enhanced sixteen levels.
See USSG § 2F1.1(b)(1)(Q). In addition, because Mr. Melton was convicted of co nspiracy, the relevant conduct for sentencing purposes is to be determinedby USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), applicable to jointly undertaken criminal activity. Under that guideline, Mr. Melton’s sentence is to be calculated on the basis of “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity , that occurred during the commission of the offens e of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” Id. (emphasis added). The commentary to this guideline provides the following guidance in its ap plication. The principles and limits of sentencing accountabil ity under this guideline are not always the same as the principles and limits of criminal liability. Under subsections (a)(1) and ( a)(2), the focus is on the specific acts and omissions for which the de fendant is to be-6-

held accountable in determining the applicable guid eline range, rather than on whether the defendant is criminally liable for an offense as a . . . conspirator. USSG § 1B1.3, comment. (n.1). The commentary furth er states that the scope of the criminal activity jointly undertak en by the defendant (the “jointly undertaken criminal activity”) is notnecessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy, and hen ce relevant conduct is not necessarily the same for every parti cipant. In order to determine the defendant’s accountability for the co nduct of others under subsection (a)(1)(B), the court must first de termine the scope of the criminal activity the particular defendant a greed to jointly undertake (i.e. , the scope of the specific conduct and objectives embraced by the defendant’s agreement). Id. comment. (n.2). In response to Mr. Melton’s objection to the sixtee n-point enhancement recommended by the presentence report and the government’s comments on the matter, the court stated at the sentencing hearing the Probation Office’s position is essentially that“in for a penny, in for a pound;” and as a co-conspirator, an offense f or which Mr. Melton has entered a plea of guilty, he is responsi ble for the foreseeable consequences of the acts of his coconsp irators. I’m not aware of any principle that that liability ends so long as the conspiracy is set in motion. It doesn’t come to anend merely because extrinsic events like an arrest interrupt aparticular conspirator’s participation. . . . So the objectio n is overruled with respect to the 30 million dollars, and I find that the production of that amount was a foreseeable consequence of a conspirac y. No particular dollar amount would be foreseeable to Mr . Melton, but it is foreseeable that there would be production of count erfeit money in large amounts, that’s the very purpose of the consp iracy, and it is relevant conduct connected to Mr. Melton because itis a foreseeable consequence of the corrupt agreement.2 The “in for a penny; in for a pound” rationale.

3 The “reasonably foreseeable” rationale. -7- Aplee. Supp. App. at 24, 28-29. Although the court’s statement is somewhat unclear, it reveals two possible grounds for the court’s conclusion that the sixteen -level enhancement was appropriate. First, the court apparently believed that the scope of Mr. Melton’s participation in the conspiracy extended beyond the date of his arrest and that he was therefore accountable for the final product of the entire conspiracy, i.e. , $30 million in counterfeit bills produced by the revers e sting operation. 2 Second, even if the scope of the criminal activity Mr. Melton ag reed to jointly undertake did not include events subsequent to his arrest, the court might have concluded it was reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Melton that $30 milli on of currency would be produced in the original counterfeiting scheme. 3 As the commentary quoted above makes clear, “the co urt must first determine . . . the scope of the specific conduct a nd objectives embraced by the defendant’s agreement.” USSG § 1B1.3, comment. (n. 2). In making this determination, the court must keep in mind that “th e scope of the criminal activity jointly undertaken by the defendant . . . is not ne cessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy.” Id. ; see also United States v. Williams , No. 91-2183, 1992 WL 129615, at *2-*3 (10th Cir. June 11, 1992) (inco rrect application of4 In accordance with 10th Cir. R. 36.3, we find this unpublished opinion

persuasive.

5 Indeed, at the sentencing hearing, when the court specifically asked the government to bear its burden of proof and present facts in support of an adjustment upward based on the $30 million producedin the reverse sting operation, the government admitted it could not mee t this burden. The only facts it could present to the court were “actually what o ccurred:” “on May One, when Mr. Melton was arrested, his involvement stopped wi th this entire situation,” and (continued...) -8- guidelines where district court “made no distinctio n between the scope of [defendant’s] agreement and that of his coconspirat ors”). 4 Proper attribution at sentencing requires the district court to analyze, and make “particularized findings” about, the scope of the specific agreemen t the individual defendant joined in relation to the conspiracy as a whole. S ee United States v. Thomas , 114 F.3d 228, 255 (D.C. Cir. 1997); United States v. Ch ildress , 58 F.3d 693, 722-23 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 825 (1996). The district court failed to make such “particulari zed findings” and misapplied the sentencing guidelines by improperly assuming that the scope of the criminal activity Mr. Melton agreed to jointly unde rtake was the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy, including the rever se sting. We need not remand for further proceedings on the scope of Mr. Melton’ s particular agreement, however, because the facts underlying the determination are undisputed and do not carry the government’s burden of establishing M r. Melton’s accountability for the activity that took place after he was arrested. 5 Mr. Melton agreed to aid the5 (...continued)

“the conspiracy . . . was over at that point with [ regard to] him.” Aplt. App. at 27. -9- original scheme by providing a truck to help move e quipment obtained by Mr. Delaney and by finding a building for that equipmen t. After he and Mr. Delaney were arrested, the original agreement was abandonedand was replaced by a reverse sting operation which was set up, funded, and equipped by the government in order to investigate a coconspirator Mr. Melton had never met through activity to which Mr. Melton never agreed. Mr. Melton was indicted only for activities that took place from March 1, 1996 t o May 1, 1996, the date of his arrest. He was not indicted for the events of the reverse sting operation. We have found no indication in the record that the post-arr est metamorphosis of the original counterfeiting plan was within the scope o f the criminal activity Mr. Melton agreed to undertake. A defendant should notbe held accountable when coconspirators substantially alter the agreed-upon plan without his knowledge or acquiescence. United States v. Gonzales , 65 F.3d 814, 822-23 (10th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds , 117 S. Ct. 1032 (1997). Insofar as the district court’s upward enhancement of Mr. Melton’s sentence relied on the $30 million produced subsequ ent to his arrest, the court’s observation that the printing of a large amount of money was reasonably foreseeable simply does not inform the issue of the scope of Mr. Melton’s-10-

agreement. “[R]easonable foreseeability is not by itself sufficient to establish liability for the acts of coconspirators. To be co nsidered as relevant conduct, such acts also must be in furtherance of ‘jointly u ndertaken criminal activity.’” United States v. McDuffy , 90 F.3d 233, 236 (7th Cir. 1996); Childress , 58 F.3d at 723 (“[W]ith respect to scope of the agreement anal ysis, . . . court ‘was actively employing the wrong legal standard’ by focusing exc lusively on reasonable foreseeability.”) (citation omitted). Furthermore, although the district court was correc t in noting that a conspiracy does not end simply because one conspirator has been arrested, the court failed to address the more relevant and narro w issue of whether the arrest of a conspirator signals the end of that particular co nspirator’s role in the ongoing conspiracy. Although a conspirator’s arrest or inc arceration by itself is insufficient to constitute his withdrawal from the conspiracy, see United States v. Nelson , No. 90-3081, 1991 WL 163061, at *12 (10th Cir. Au g. 23, 1991), an arrest may under certain circumstances amount to a withdrawal. Compare United States v. Harris , 542 F.2d 1283, 1299, 1301 (7th Cir. 1976) (no withdrawal where arrested conspirator continued to give orders conce rning conspiracy from jail); United States v. Agueci , 310 F.2d 817, 839 (2d Cir. 1962) (no withdrawal w here arrested conspirator designated others to look afte r his interest in conspiracy and continued to have stake in venture) withUnited States v. Brown , No. 96-3371,6 See n.4 supra. -11-

1997 WL 589180, at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 24, 1997) (arrest plus agreement to cooperate with law enforcement officials constitute d withdrawal); 6 United States v. Urrego , 853 F. Supp. 646, 649-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (arrest plus no evidence of continued involvement in conspiracy amounted to withdrawal); United States v. Escobar , 842 F. Supp. 1519, 1528 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (involvem ent in conspiracy terminated with arrest where continued participatio n in conspiracy impossible). See also United States v. Price , 13 F.3d 711, 732 (3d Cir. 1994) (although arrest does not automatically bar attribution to defendantof coconspirators’ acts after that date, “since ‘[t]he relevant conduct provision limits accomplice attribution to conduct committed in furtherance of the activity th e defendant agreed to undertake,’ a defendant cannot be held responsible for conduct committed after he or she could no longer assist or monitor his or hercoconspirators.”) (quoting United States v. Collado , 975 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir. 1992)). Here, the government clearly conceded that Mr. Melton’s parti cipation in the conspiracy terminated with his arrest and that Mr. Melton had absolutely no involvement with the reverse sting operation which was entirelyset up and funded by the government with the cooperation of Mr. Delaney. Ap lt. App. at 27-28. The acts of Mr. Melton’s fellow conspirators therefore canno t be attributed to him following his arrest.-12-

Having concluded that Mr. Melton’s role in the cons piracy ended with his arrest, we now turn to whether it was reasonably fo reseeable to Mr. Melton when he participated in the original scheme that Mr. Sim s and Mr. Delaney would agree to counterfeit a sum of $30 million. The district court must also make “particularized findings” as to the reasonable fore seeability of the amount of money attributed to the individual defendant. Tho mas , 114 F.3d at 255. Accordingly, the district court must do more than state in “conclusory” terms that the q uantity of [money] attributed was reasonably foreseeable to the defend ant. Rather, the judge must “set[] forth the reasons why the particu lar amount of [money] was reasonably foreseeable to him, with ref erence to the evidence before the court.” Childress , 58 F.3d at 723 (quoting United States v. Edwards , 945 F.2d 1387, 1399 (7th Cir. 1991)). At the sentencing hearing, the d istrict court explicitly stated that “[n]o particular dollar amount would be foreseeable to Mr. Melton, but it is foreseeable that there would be production of count erfeit money in large amounts.” Aplee. Supp. App. at 28. While reasonab le estimates based on “the available information” will suffice in determining the attributable amount of money under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b), see U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 comment. (n.8); United States v. Copus , 110 F.3d 1529, 1535 (10th Cir. 1997), we hold it was clear error for the court to arbitrarily assign $30 million as the “large amount[]” of-13-

counterfeit money foreseeable to Mr. Melton absent any factual support for this particular amount in the record. Even if the district court based its finding of rea sonable foreseeability on conversations between Mr. Sims and Mr. Delaney that$30 million was the amount of the original counterfeiting scheme, Aplt. App. at 4, the court’s determination was nonetheless clearly erroneous. C ourts must examine a conspirator’s position within a conspiracy and whether that position gave him firsthand knowledge of the quantity of counterfeit money involved to determine whether the conduct of other conspirators is reason ably foreseeable to him. See , e.g. , Thomas , 114 F.3d at 257. If, for instance, Mr. Melton wa s not aware of the amount of counterfeit money that Mr. Sims and Mr. D elaney agreed to produce, the district court cannot permissibly conclude thatthe sum of $30 million was reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Melton and enhance hi s sentence based on this amount. Cf. United States v. Pretty , 98 F.3d 1213, 1222 (10th Cir. 1996) (amount of money received by coconspirator in bribery consp iracy was reasonably foreseeable and therefore properly attributed to de fendants where the “nature of the conspiracy was such that each participant almos t certainly knew how much money was going where”), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 2436 (1997); United States v. Chalarca , 95 F.3d 239, 245-46 (2d Cir. 1996) (upholding dis trict court’s imposition of sentence based upon least amount of c ocaine in Sentencing-14-

Guidelines Drug Quantity Table where record reveale d defendant lacked knowledge of “how much cocaine was the subject of the conspiratorial agreement”). The district court did not make particularized fin dings as to the reasonable foreseeability of the amount attributed to Mr. Melt on. Nor is there anything in this record that indicates Mr. Delaney ever discuss ed with Mr. Melton the amount originally agreed upon by Mr. Delaney and Mr. Sims, even though Mr. Delaney provided much information about the conspiracy by c ooperating with the government. Indeed, the government concedes in its brief there is no evidence Mr. Melton knew of the $30 million sum agreed to bythe other conspirators. Aplee. Br. at 12. Mr. Melton’s lack of knowledge a bout the amount to be counterfeited is further supported by the fact thathe played a minimal role in the conspiracy, as the district court held, and had no direct dealings with either Mr. Sims, the financier, or Mr. Edenfield, the informan t. Significantly, the record reflects that Mr. Delaney misled Mr. Melton about t he amount Mr. Delaney was to receive from Mr. Sims. Mr. Delaney said he was rec eiving $150,000 for his part in the scheme and that Mr. Melton would receive $50 ,000 of this amount for assisting Mr. Delaney. Mr. Delaney, however, was a ctually to receive $3 million. Aplee. Supp. App. at 20. Thus, the only evidence i n the record concerning Mr.-15-

Melton’s knowledge is that he was being misinformedby Mr. Delaney about the scope of the counterfeiting scheme. Accordingly, we conclude the district court misappl ied the guidelines by equating the scope of the criminal activity Mr. Mel ton agreed to undertake with the scope of the entire conspiracy. The record con tains no evidence that Mr. Melton agreed to the criminal activity undertaken a fter his arrest, or that it was reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Melton the amount of $30 million was the object of the original counterfeiting scheme. We therefore VACATE the sentence and
REMAND for resentencing in light of this opinion.