# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 38 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Carl os Kali er Ro dr ig ue z, al so kn own as C arl os Jo se Ro dr ig ue z-Ort iz

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 38 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mi ch ael Lee Mar co v

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Nov em be r 12 , 20 18
Fi le d: Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

I. BACKGRO UND

Carl os Ro dr ig ue z an d Mic ha el Mar co v ap pe al th e se nt en ces an d rest it ut io na l

req ui rem en ts im

po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fo ll owi ng th ei r gu il ty pl eas to wire frau d. 1

Ro dr ig ue z an d M arco v, an d m an y ot he rs , par ti ci pa te d i n a sch em e to ob ta in m on ey

fro m ge ne ral ly el de rly vi ct im s in th e Dub uq ue , Io wa, area an d els ewh ere by cal li ng

an d te ll in g th em th at rel at iv es in th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c ha d be en jail ed an d th at th e
rel at iv es ne ed ed to wire m on ey to ge t th em ou t. Vict im s wire d m on ey to a pe rs on at

a lo cat io n pr ov id ed by th e cal le rs

. The cri m in al or g a n i z a t io n em pl oyed "cr ew
le ad ers " an d "ru nn ers " in th e Uni te d St at es

. The crew le ad e r s c o mm u n ic at ed wit h

pe op le in th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c, whi le ru nn ers p i ck ed up m on ey , ret ur ne d it to

crew le ad ers , who th en d e p o s i t ed it in Uni te d St at es ba nk acco un ts fo r su bs eq ue nt

tra ns fer to th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c, or di rect ly tra ns ferr ed m on ey to th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c.

St art in g i n 2 0 1 5

, Ro dr ig ue z was bo th a ru nn er an d a crew le ad er an d he was

in di rect co nt act wit h m em be rs of th e or ga ni zat io n in th e Dom in ic an Rep ub li c to gi ve

th em na m es of po ss ib le ru nn ers

. Ro dr ig ue z al so recr ui te d ru nn ers an d crew le ad ers

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-in th e Uni te d St at es an d di rect ly s up erv is ed at l eas t t wen ty-th ree r un ne rs at v ari ou s

ti m es du rin g th e co ns pi racy. In Decem be r 20 15

, on e of th os e recr ui ts

, co -d efen da nt

Ma r c o v , joi ne d th e sc he m e. Mar co v qu ic kl y im m ers ed hi m se lf in th e pr og ram , ad va nc in g fro m ru nn er to crew le ad er wit hi n a few m on th s. As a crew le ad er, Mar co v
ha d di rect co nt act wit h Dom in ic an Rep ub li c or ga ni zat io n m em be rs an d recr

ui te d an d

ul ti m at el y su pe rv is ed at le as t n i n e ru nn ers

. In May 20 17

, Ro dr ig ue z an d Mar co v
each pl ead ed gu il ty to o ne co un t o f wire frau d.

At Ro dr ig ue z's se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Ro dr ig ue z was joi nt ly

an d se ve ral ly li ab le wit h cert ai n ot he r m em be rs o f t h e co ns pi racy fo r pa y m en t of

res ti tu ti on in th e am ou nt of $7 7 4

, 5 8 4 .97

. Ro dr ig ue z ag reed at se nt en ci ng th at th is

nu m be r was th e co rrec t am ou nt of lo ss in vo lv ed in th e to ta l sc he m e (b ut ch al le ng ed

th at he sh ou ld be pe rs on al ly li ab le fo r th at am ou nt of res ti tu ti on ). The co ur t de pa rte d

up ward fo ur le ve ls un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 5K2 .0(a )(3 ),

fin di ng th at th e Gui de li ne s di d no t ad eq ua te ly ta ke in to co ns id erat io n th e nu m be r of

vi ct i ms

. A lt ern at iv el y , th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at if a fo ur -le ve l U.S.S.G. § 5K2

up ward de pa rtu re was no t le ga ll y ap pr op ria te

, it wou ld ha ve ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n

to va ry up ward s un de r th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). As no te d i n t he

go ve rn m en t's br ie f, th e di st ric t cou rt m ad e an ad di ti on al do wnwar d adju st m en t "fo r

reas on s un rel at ed to th is ap pe al " an d Ro dr ig ue z's res ul ti ng se nt en ce was 79 m on th s

in pri so n.

At Mar co v's se nt en ci ng , a Dub uq ue , Io wa, po li ce of fic er who ha d in ve st ig at ed

th e cri m in al ve nt ur e te st ifi ed reg ard in g Mar co v's ro le in t h e o v e r a ll sc he m e. He

te st ifi ed th at Mar co v was recru it ed by Ro dr ig ue z to be a ru nn er; th at Mar co v be ga n

recr ui ti ng ot he r in di vi du al s to wor k wit h hi m pi ck in g up wire tra ns fers fo r Ro dr ig ue z;

an d st at ed th at ev en tu al ly Mar co v be cam e a crew le ad er. W it h reg ard to th e am ou nt

of lo ss at tri bu ta bl e to Mar co v, th e of fic er te st ifi ed th at he in te rv ie wed se ve ral ru nn ers

wor ki ng fo r bo th Mar co v an d Ro dr ig ue z, an d te st ifi ed ab ou t th e fin an ci al do cu m en ts

he ex am in ed th at were at tri bu t a b le to ei th er Mar co v or th e ru nn ers wor ki ng fo r

-3

-Mar co v du rin g th e ti m e fram e whe n Mar co v was in vo lv ed in th e cri m es

. Bas ed up on

th is t e st im on y an d ex te ns iv e do cu m en ta ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e lo ss

at tri bu ta bl e to Mar co v was ro ug hl y $2 98 ,00 0, whi ch eq ua le d th e to ta l am ou nt of lo ss

fro m th e wire frau d po rti on of th e co ns pi racy. The di st ric t co ur t al so co rrec tl y fo un d

th at Mar co v was a man a g er or su pe rv is or in th e sc he m e. As wit h Ro dr ig ue z's

se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d up ward in Mar co v's c a s e ba se d up on th e

nu m be r of vi ct im s no t ad eq ua te ly ta ke n in to acco un t by th e Gui de li ne s. The co ur t se t

res ti tu ti on f

o r Mar co v at $2 98 ,31 4.4 2, to be sh ared joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly wit h

Ro dr ig ue z. The di st ric t co ur t's fin al se nt en ce was 12 0 m on th s, th e bo tt om of th e 12 0-

15 0 m on th Gui de li ne s ra ng e.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

On ap pe al

, R o d r ig ue z fir st ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's up ward de pa rtu re
ba se d up on th e nu m

be r of vi ct im s. Bu t, as pr ev io us ly no te d, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed

al te rn at iv el y th at it wou ld va ry up w a r ds to th e se nt en ce it arri ve d at un de r it s
di sc ret io n aut ho riz ed by 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). T hu s, i t i s u nn eces sa ry to rev ie w th e
Gui de li ne s ch al le ng e if th e up ward v a r i a n c e " is su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e se nt en ce

im po se d." Uni te d St at es v. Hen tg es , 81 7 F.3 d 10 67

, 10 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). W e gi ve
"d ue de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le

, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e." Un it ed Sta te s v . Esp in oz a, 83 1 F .3d 10 96 , 1 09 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo ral ez, 80 8 F.3 d 36 2, 36 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )).

W e fin d th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng Ro dr ig ue z to 79

m on th s i n p ris on

.

Ro dr ig ue z an d Mar co v bo th ch al le ng e th e am ou nt of res ti tu ti on or de red

. The

Man da to ry Vict im s Res ti tu ti on Act (MVRA) st at es th at a di st ric t co ur t m us t or d er

res ti tu ti on in a cas e, su ch as th is

, pr os ecu te d un de r Tit le 18 of th e Uni te d St at es Co de

if th e of fen se i n v o l v e d f

rau d or de cei t. 18 U.S.C. § 36 63 A(c)(1 )(A)(i i). The

go ve rn m en t m

us t pr ov e th e am ou nt of res ti tu ti on by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce

-4

-an d we rev ie w th e res ul ti ng res ti tu ti on or de r fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es

v. Hos ki ns , 87 6 F.3d 94 2, 94 5 (8t h Cir. 20 17 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 8 S. Ct

. 25 89 (2 01 8)

. W he n m ul ti pl e de fen da nt s are in vo lv ed in th e lo ss , th e di st ric t co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to

or de r res ti tu ti on fo r th e fu ll am ou nt of lo ss , to be sh ared jo i n t l y an d se ve ral ly by

de fen da nt s. 18 U.S.C. § 36 64 (h ). Res ti tu ti on in cl ud es am ou nt s th at were reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le as lo ss es to th e v ic ti m s. Un it ed Sta te s v. Alex an de r, 67 9 F.3d 72 1, 73 1
(8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

Ro dr ig ue z arg u e s t h a t b ecau se th ere were pe rio ds of ti m e whe n he was no t

act iv e i n th e cri m in al en te rp ris e, he sh ou ld no t be joi nt ly li ab le fo r th e fu ll

$7 74 ,58 4.9 7 am ou nt of res ti tu ti on

. Sp eci fic al ly, Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s h e was in act iv e

fro m Feb ru ary to Apr il 20 16

, th at th e am ou nt lo st du rin g th at ti m e was no t reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le to hi m , an d th e res ti tu ti on o r d er sh ou ld be red uc ed acco rd in gl y

. The

di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Ro dr ig ue z sh ou ld be he ld res po ns ib le fo r th e en ti re am ou nt

of th e lo ss , ev en th e am ou nt th at accr ue d du rin g hi s al le ge d "i na ct iv e" ti m e, be cau se
du rin g th at ti m e, Mar co v an d hi s crew were act iv e an d Mar co v was recr ui te d by

Ro dr ig ue z. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at th is lo ss , cau se d
by a crew le ad er (Ma rco v) who ha d be en recr ui te d by Ro dr ig u e z , w as reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le to Ro dr ig ue z be cau se he kn ew th e crew was act iv e du rin g th e ti m e fram e
he ch al le ng es

. Id

. Thu s, th e g ov ern m en t m et it s b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t th e co rrec t

am ou nt of res ti tu ti on was award ed

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in el ect in g to m ak e th e en ti re am ou nt joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly at tri bu ta bl e to Ro dr ig ue z.

Mar co v's ch al le ng e to th e res ti tu ti on award ed is eq ua ll y un av ai li ng

. As we

un de rs ta nd Mar co v's arg u men t, he arg ue s th at he di d no t cau se th e en ti re lo ss

at tri bu te d to hi m , an d be cau se he di d no t pe rs on al ly ga in m uc h fro m th e sc he m e, th e

am ou n t s h o u l d b e m

uc h le ss

. Si nc e he ga in ed so li tt le

, Mar co v arg ue s, it was no t

reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to hi m th at th e lo ss to vi ct im s wou ld be ne arl y $3 00 ,00 0. Lik e

Ro dr ig ue z, Mar co v d oe s n ot ch al le ng e th at $2 98 ,31 4.4 2 was l os t, h e si m pl y arg ue s

th is to ta l am ou nt is no t "at tri bu ta bl e" to hi m , an d in st ead th e a mo u n t o f res ti tu ti on

-5

-s h o ul d be le ss th an $6 ,50 0. At se nt en ci ng , th e of fic er's te st im on y in di cat ed th a t

Mar co v was in ti m at el y in vo lv ed in each tr a n s a c t i o n th at oc cu rred du rin g th e ti m e

fram e he was in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy–Ma rco v kn ew th e do ll ar am ou nt s in vo lv ed

wit h e ach tra ns act io n a nd wher e th e wir e tr an sf ers sh ou ld be pi ck ed up

.

Mar co v's ci ta ti on to Hon ey cu tt v. Uni te d St at es 13 7 S. Ct . 1 62 6 ( 2 0 1 7 ) d oe s

no t ad va nc e h i s c a u s e

. In Hon ey cu tt th e Co ur t he ld th at th e fo rfei tu re st at ut e, 21
U.S.C. § 8 53 , li m it ed for fei tu re t o p ro pe rty the de fen da nt hi m se lf act ua ll y acq ui red

as a res ul t of th e cri me, an d fu rth er he ld th at joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y was no t

ap pr op ria te in th e fo rfei tu re co nt ex t. 13 7 S. Ct

. at 16 32 -3 3. W hi le we can ap pr eci at e

Mar co v's at te m

pt s to ex te nd th e reas on in g be hi nd Hon ey cu tt 's joi nt an d se ve rab il it y

ru li ng to th e res ti tu ti on st at ut e, th e rat io na le s be hi nd th e fo rfei tu re st at ut e an d th e

res ti tu ti on st at ut e are qu it e di st in ct

. The fo r f ei tu re st at ut e is m ean t to pr ev en t a
de fen da nt fro m ke ep in g hi s "i ll -g ot te n ga in s," to ret ur n pr op ert y to th os e de pr iv ed of

it

, an d to se rv e as a de te rren t to th e eco no m ic po wer of cri m in al act iv it y

. Id

. at 16 31
(q uo ti ng Cap li n & Dry sd al e, Ch art ered v. Uni te d St at es , 49 1 U.S. 61 7, 62 9- 30
(1 98 9) ). W hi le so m e as pe ct s of m an da to ry res t i t u t i o n st at ut es are pu ni ti ve , th e

pr im ary pu rp os e of su ch st at ut es is "re m ed ia l or co m pe ns at or y ." Paro li ne v. Uni te d

St at es , 57 2 U.S. 43 4, 45 6 (2 01 4)

. Mo st im po rta nt ly, un li ke th e fo rfei tu re st at ut e, th e

ex pr es s la ng ua ge of th e MVRA al lo ws jo in t an d se ve rab le li ab il it y

. Not hi ng in

Hon ey cu tt un de rcu ts th e la ng ua ge o f 18 U.S.C. § 36 64 (h ) ("I f th e co ur t fin ds th at

m or e th an 1 de fen da nt ha s co nt rib ut ed to t h e l o s s o f a vi ct im

, th e co ur t m ay m ak e
each de fen da nt li ab le fo r pa y m en t of th e fu ll am ou nt of res ti tu ti on

. . . ." ). In fact

, a

pr im ary reas on be hi nd th e Hon ey cu tt Co ur t's de ci si on was th e la ck of st at ut or y te xt

au th or iz in g fo rfei tu re to be al lo tt ed joi nt ly an d se ve ral ly. 13 7 S. C t

. a t 1 63 2.

Acco rd in gl y , th e go ve rn m en t m et it s b ur de n t o p ro ve th e am ou nt of res ti tu ti on by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce an d th e di st ri c t c o u r t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in

or de rin g Marco v li ab le fo r th e fu ll am ou nt of th e lo ss du rin g th e ti m e he was act iv e

in th e cri m in al en te rp ris e.

-6

-Mar co v fu rth er ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's fact ua l as se ss m en t th at he ha d a

su pe rv is or y ro le res ul ti ng in th e up ward de pa rtu re, an d arg ue s in st ead th at th e co ur t

sh ou ld ha ve gra nt ed hi m

a m in or -ro le do wn wa rd

de pa rtu re. W e rev ie w t he di st ric t

co ur t's fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g a m in or ro le red uc ti on fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es

v. Pri ce, 54 2 F.3 d 61 7, 62 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e fin d no cl ear e r r o r i n t h e di st ric t

co ur t's fact ua l f

i n di ng s. The po li ce of

fic er te st ifyin g at th e he ari ng in di cat ed th at

Mar co v was no t on ly a recr ui te d pa rti ci p a n t in th e sc he m e, bu t rat he r qu ic kl y ro se

th ro ug h th e ran ks an d be ga n recr ui ti ng ot he rs hi m se lf an d b e c a me a crew le ad er.

Mar co v a dm it te d th at he recr ui te d at le as t ni ne pe op le to be co m e ru nn ers an d th en

su pe rv is ed th em as a crew le ad er. The fact th at th e sc he m e in vo lv ed a la rg e nu m be r

of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s do es no t m ak e Mar co v's su pe rv is io n ov e r a r e la ti ve ly sm al l

p e r cen ta ge of th em an y le ss su pe rv is or y

. Perh ap s he was a "m in or su pe r v i s o r

. "

Howev er, n e i t h e r ou r cas es no r th e Gui de li ne s m ak e su ch a di st in ct io n. See id

. (u ph ol di ng di st ric t cou rt' s refu sa l to gr an t a m in or rol e ad jus tm en t wh ere d efen da nt

su pe rv is ed an d di rect ed at le as t on e ot he r pe rs on to co m m it frau d)

. The di st ric t

co ur t's fin di ng th at Mar co v was a su pe rv is or , no t a m in or pa rti ci pa nt

, was no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s.

Fi na ll y , Mar co v ch al le ng es hi s se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

, whi ch

cl ai m we rev ie w fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5,

46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). Th e di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it fai ls to

co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve in st ead rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s
si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s

a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s. Uni te d St at es v. Lon g, 90 6 F.3 d

72 0, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). W e ha ve rev ie wed th e reco rd

, i n c l u d in g th e se nt en ci ng

tra ns cri pt an d pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t, an d fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n. Here,

th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered al l of th e rel ev an t fact or s, di d n o t g i v e w ei gh t to an y

im pr op er fa ct or , and di d n ot co m m it a cl ear e rro r in jud gm en t.

-7

-II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm bo th sen te nc es an d re st it ut io n o rd ers

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-