FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 09 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cr-0 00 21 -RH-WCS-7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, vers us ANTHONYKELLA M, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ant ho ny Kella m

ap pe al s h is 94 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to c omm itfrau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th co un te rfei t cr ed itcard s o r ot he r acc es s d ev ic es (Co un t 1 ); f rau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th co un te rfei t cr ed it card s o r ot he r acc es s d ev ic es (Co un t 2 ); a ndag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft ( Co un t 1 0) . He rai se s t wo i ss ue s o n app eal . Firs t, Kel la m arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin im po si ng th e two -y ear c on se cu ti ve sen te nc e m an da te d b y th e ag gr av at edid en ti ty th eftst atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A, b ecau se it s ap pl ic at io n c reat edanun warrant ed se nt en ce d is pa rity

inco nt rav en ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 . Seco nd , Kell am arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinco un ti ng cert ai n p aren t co m pa ni es an d t he ir subs id ia rie s as sep arat e “ vi ct im s” un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(B) . Upo n re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te de no vo . Uni te d St at es v. Se

ga rr a , 58 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er curia m), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 6 33 (20 10 ). “ W e rev ie w fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r an d app li cat io n of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es de no vo .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu pt a , 57 2 F .3d87 8, 8 87 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 30 2 (2 01 0) . “ ‘A lt ho ug h re vi ew fo r cl ear erro r is de fere nt ia l, a fi nd in g o f fac t m us t b e supp orte d b y

subs tant ia l ev id en ce.’” Id
. (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro be rt so n , 49 3 F .3d13 22 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 07 )). Andat s en te nc in g, “ ‘[w] he n ade fen da ntch al le ng es on e o f th e fac tu al ba se s o f hi s se nt en ce,’” th e g ov ern m en t m us t, “ ‘w it h re li ab le an d s pe ci fic ev id en ce,’” est ab li sh th atfactby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Id
. (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. 2Se

pu lv ed a , 11 5 F .3d88 2, 8 90 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). “ ‘W he th er a p ers onis a vi ct im ’ un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ‘ is a le ga l co nc lu si onwe rev ie w de no vo .’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. El liso r , 52 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fol ey , 50 8 F .3d62 7, 6 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 )). To ad dr es s Kel la m ’s firs t ar gu m en t, we m us t b eg in with § 10 28 A’ s p la in la ng ua ge . See Se

ga rr a , 58 2 F .3dat 1 27 1. “ If the st atut e’s m ean in g i s p la in an d un am bi gu ou s, the re i s n o n eedforfurth er i nqui ry .” Id
. (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Fis he r , 28 9 F .3d13 29 , 13 37 –3 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n om it te d) ). In p ert in en t p art , § 1 02 8A s ta te s: (b ) Co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e. -- No tw iths ta nd in g a nyothe r p ro visi on of la w --

. . . (3 ) in de te rm in in g an y te rm o f i m pr is on m en t to be im

po se d fo r th e [ un de rlyin g fel on y ], a co urt sh al l no t in an y way reduc e th e te rm to be impo se d fo r su ch cri m e so as to co m pe ns at e fo r, or ot h e rw i s e ta ke in to acco un t, an y se pa rat e te rm of im pr is on m en t im po se d o r to be im

po se d fo r a v io la ti on of [ § 1 02 8A] . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( b) (em ph as is ad de d) . W e in te rp ret eda si m il ar s ta tu te , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c), i n Uni te d Sta tes v. McLymo nt , 45 F.3d40 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (pe r cu ria m). In McLymo nt , we co nc lu de d t ha t “ Co ng res s’ us e o f th e p hr as e ‘no twi th st an di ng an y othe r pr ov is io n of law’ m ak es itcle ar tha t Co ng res s i nt en de d t he pe na lt y pro vi si on s o f § 9 24 (c) t o 3ta ke pre ced en ce o ve r an y pre ex is ti ng or s ub se qu en tl y -en act edsen te nc in g le gi sl at io n, i nc lu di ng th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es .” 45 F.3dat 4 01 . Sect io n 1 02 8A pl ai nl y pro hi bi ts a di st ric t co urt fr om reduc in g ade fen da nt ’s sen te nc e fo r hi s o r he r un de rlyin g o ffen se inord er t o c om pe ns at e fo r th e st atut e’s m an da to ry two -y ear se nt en ce. Se e18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( b) (3 ). Andth is m an da te “ ta ke [s ] pr eced en ce ov er an y pre ex is ti ng or s ub se qu en tl y -en act edsen te nc in g l eg is la ti on ,” in cl ud in g § 35 53 ’s sen te nc in g fa ct or s. Se e McLy mon t , 45 F.3dat 4 01 . Con se qu en tl y , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err ei th er i n s en te nc in g Kel la m to anad di ti on al two y ears pu rs ua ntto § 1 02 8A, o r in di sr eg ard in g t ha t ad di ti on al two -y ear t erm inim po si ng se nt en ces forKell am ’s un de rlyin g o ffen se s, re gard le ss of t he di sp ari ty betweenhi s to ta l s en te nc e an d t ho se of h is co -d efen da nt s. As t o Kel la m ’s sec on d a rg um en t, the go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedtes ti m on y at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng est ab li sh in g t ha t the fol lo win g fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti on s wer e in so m e way in vo lv edinpa ren t-s ub si di ary rel at io ns hi ps at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se co nduc t: (1) GE Mon ey

Ban k a ndGE Capi ta l Fi na nc e; (2) Ch as e Ban k a nd JP Mo rg anCh as e Ban k; (3) W el ls Farg o a ndW ach ov ia ; an d (4 ) Ban k o f Am eri ca an d F IA CardServ ic es . Taki ng th es e rel at io ns hi ps in to acco un t, the di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t the re were 52 sep arat e v ic ti m s. The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es im po se a fo ur -le ve l en hanc em en t wh enan 4of

fen se in vo lv es 50 or m or e v ic ti m s. U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(B) . “ Vict im ” is de fin edas “ any

pe rs onwho su st ai ne d a ny partof t he actua l l os s d et erm in ed un de r” § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 ). U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 cmt. n .1. An d “ in di vi du al s, co rp or at io ns , [an d] co m

pa ni es . . .” are in cl ud ed , am on g o th er en ti ti es , inth e d efi ni ti on of

“ [p ]erso n.” Id
. The co m m en ta ry do es no t ex pl ai n wh ethe r a p aren t co m pa ny and it s s ub si di ary sh ou ldbe tre at edas o ne or m ul ti pl e v ic ti m s. Bu t g en eral ly a pare nt co m pa ny andit s s ub si di ary are s ep arat e en ti ti es un le ss “ th e co rp or at e v ei l can b e pi erce d.” Se e Atl an ta Gas Light Co . v. UGI Util

s., In c. , 46 3 F .3d12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Bas edon th e te st im on y

pre se nt edat the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ct co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he na tu re o f th e b us in es s re la ti on sh ip s among th e en ti ti es inqu es ti on were n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Andbe cau se no th in g su gg es te d t ha t the co rp or at e v ei l h adbe enor s ho ul d b e p ie rced , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atth es e p aren t co m pa ni es an d t he ir s ub si di ari es were se pa rat e v ic ti m s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

5