The Honor able James G. Carr, Chief United States District J udg e for the N orthern D istrict * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 09a0767n.06 No. 06-6280 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DE L OI S HA RRI S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR T H E WE ST E RN D I ST RI CT OF TENNESSEE

Be fore : GRI FF I

N and KE THL EDGE, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District J udg e. * KETHLED GE , C i rc u i tJ u d ge. De l o i s Ha rr i s ap p ea l s h er co n v i ct i ons and sentenc e for various felonies a rising f ro m t wo s ch em es to steal cr edit car ds. She argues that her g uilty plea wa s inv olu nta ry and tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

imp ro pe rl y

fo un d th a t sh e ha d a

le a de rs hip ro le in t

he sc he me s. We r e je c t he r a rgume nts , a

nd a ff ir m. I. Ha rr is a dmi tte d in

the dis tr ic t c ourt

to p art ic ipatin g in two s e pa rate c re dit -c ard

sc he me s. Both sche mes prey ed upon elde rly car dholders. I n the first, which took plac e fr om Dece mber 2002 to Febr uary 2004, Har

ris stole cre dit car ds by placing phone calls to elderly car dholders, in which she would pre tend to be a card-company repr esentative and ask f or per sonal and a ccountNo. 06-6280

Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ris

-2- information. Afte r obtaining the information, Ha rr is would call the ca

rd compa ny , chang e the
acc ount addre ss, and have a new car d sent to the new addre ss. Har ris and others would then use the
car ds for c ash wi t h d rawals and purc hases. In total, this scheme involved 29 victims and ca used losses exceeding $63,000. The sec ond scheme took place f rom Fe bruar

y 2004 to November

2004, and wa s on a larg er scale . Ag ain, Harris called elderly persons, obtained information from them, and then r equeste d new
car ds from the issuing company . I n this sche me, howeve r, Har ris also made f

raudule nt wire tra

nsfer s from the victims’ ac counts. Har ris rec ruited numerous othe r per sons to assist in this scheme, a nd g ave e ach of

them a portion of its proce eds. This scheme cause d losses exceeding $682,000. Har ris was indicted f

or the first scheme in Septe mber 2004, and char g ed with 21 c ounts of wi re fr a ud , ma il f ra ud , unla wf ul u se of ano the r p e rs on ’s ide nti ty to c om mi t a fel on y , a

nd fr a ud in
c on ne c tio n w itha c c e ss d e vic e s. I n a se pa rate c a se , Harr is wa s in dic te d o n th e se c on d s c he me in Jul y 20 05 , a nd c ha rg e d w ith17 wi re -f

ra ud c ounts
. Har ris there afte r ag ree d to plead g uilty to all counts in b o t h indictments. I n return, the g overn m en t agr eed not to oppose a reduc tion of her Guide lines rang e for acc eptanc e of responsibility . The pa

rties also ag ree d that, for pur poses of calc ulating Har

ris’s Guidelines ra

ng e, “the total amount of rele vant conduct and any other sentenc ing e nhance ments will be determined by the sentenc ing c ourt utiliz ing a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standa rd.” The guilty -plea

hear ings f

or ea ch case were held separ ately
. During the hearing for the 2005 indictment, Harris’ s co u n s el o b j ec t edt o t h e go v ern m en t ’s ch ar ac t er i z at i o no f H arri s as t h e r i n gleade r in the scheme
. T h e d i s trict court initially sug g ested a

trial on that issue, bec ause it thoug htNo. 06-6280

Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ris

-3- (incorr ectly

) that the issue might be rese rved f or a jury under United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In the cour

t’s mind, the plea agr eeme nt thus repr esente d a waiver of Harr is’s rig ht to have a jury decide her se ntencingenhanc ements. The court briefly rec essed the hea ring so that Harr is and her c ounsel cou l d d iscuss whether she wished to make that waiver and to proc eed w ith the plea ag ree ment g ener ally . Her counsel stated a fter the rec ess that she did. The c ourt then ac cepte d Ha rr is’ s g uil ty

ple a fo r t he c ha rg e s in the 20 05 ind ic tme nt. A diffe rent district c ourt judg e later acc epted Ha

rris’s guilty

plea f or the c harg es in the 2004 indictment. The two ca ses wer e then c onsolidated for se ntencing . At the sentenc i n g h ea ri n g, the court as k ed Harris whe ther she ha d any objections to the Presente nce Re port (PSR). Her c ounsel objected to the PSR’s descr ipti o n s o f the sec ond scheme , stating that “the information . . . comes from individuals who are supply ing the information and they are benef iting from the information.” Har ris’s counse l specifica lly conce ded, however, that he did not contest the ac cura cy of that inf or ma tio n o r a

ny oth e r i nf or ma tio n in the PSR. The c ourt adopted the PSR ’s finding s of fac t. The court specific ally found that Har ris “wa s
an o rg anize r a

nd Ithi nk sh e c are full y carri ed ou t th is s c he me and the so lic itatio n o f t

he pe op le to
make thi s sc he me wo rk .” Ac c or din g ly , th e cou rt inc re a se d H arr is’ s o ff

e ns e le ve l by

fo ur le ve ls purs ua nt t o U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 1( a ). He r f ina l G uid e lin e s r ang e wa s 9 7 to 12 1 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt; the c ourt se nte nc e d h e r t o 1 04 mon ths
. This appea l followed.No. 06-6280

Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ris

-4- II. A. Har ris argues that her g uilty plea was involuntary
. Specifica lly , she conte nds that the district
c ourt thr e a te ne d h e r wi th a tr ia l if sh e did no t w ith dr aw h e r o bje c tio n to the le a de rs hip e nh anc e me nt. Ha rris never objec ted to her ple a’s voluntar iness in the district court, so we r eview he r cla im for plain err or. See U

nited States v. W

ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 378 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The re cord be lies Harr is’s claim. The district c ourt did not threaten Har ris with a trial if she ref used t o withdraw her objection to the leade rship enhanc ement. Instead, the c ourt mere ly soug ht to ensure that Harr is was awa re of her putative rig ht to a jury trial on that issue, and to confirm that sh e wi sh e d to wa ive it. (T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s on ly e rr or in that e xch ang e wa s in thi nk ing that H a rr is had a rig ht to a jury trial on this iss ue in the first plac e. See United States v. Fe rguson , 456 F.3d 660, 6 6 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. ) T h e r e c o r d t h e r e f o r e m a k e s c l e ar

t h a tH ar r i s ’ s g u i l t y p l e a s w e r e v o l u n t a r y. Har ris makes o t h er arguments that are derivative of her involuntariness one. Na mely , she say s her se ntence was proce durally unrea sonable beca use it was “ba sed on bad la w and a coer ced, involuntary

admission,” and that her

sentenc e wa s substantively unrea sonable beca use “the District Court ba se d th e se nte nc e on ” an inva lid ple a . Ha rr is’ s Br . at 12, 13 . Sinc e Ha rr is’ s p le a s w e re in fa c t vo lun tary , w e re

je c t th e se argume nts a s w e ll. B. Har ris also cha lleng es the district cour t’s finding that she wa s a leader of the sec ond scheme
. Under the Guidelines’ le ader ship-enhanc ement provision, a defe ndant’s off ense le vel is increa sed by four leve ls “[i] f the de fenda nt was an or g anizer or leade r of a criminal ac tivity that involved fiveNo. 06-6280

Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ris

-5- or more pa

rticipants or wa s otherwise e x tensive[.] ” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1( a). We rev i ew t he district court’s finding that Har

ris play ed such a leade rship role for clea r er ror. See U

nited States v. He nley , 360 F.3d 509, 516 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Har ris argues there was insuffic ient evidenc e to s upport the findi ng beca use “the g overnme nt put on absolutely

no proof t h at M s . Ha rr is was a lea der.” Har ris’s B r. at 15. B ut Harr is did not dispute any

of the fa cts rec ited in her PSR; and those facts ove rwhelmingly supported the district
c ourt ’s fi nd ing . A s se t f

or th i n the PSR, Ha

rr is’ s se c on d s c he me inv olv e d 1 5 p art ic ipa nts . H a rr is
re c ru ite d ma

ny of th os e partic ipa

nts , o bta ine d th e inf

or ma tio n n e c e ssa

ry to s te a l th e c re dit

c a rd s,
or g anize d th e wi re tr ans fe rs , a nd ke pt f or he rs e lf mos t of the mon e y

ob ta ine d thro ug h th e m. Th e se fac ts standing a lone ar e enoug h for the e nhance ment here
. See, e .g. , Un ite d Stat es v. W all s , 546 F.3d 728, 735 (6th Cir. 2008) (a ffirming four- level enha nceme nt when def

endant or g anized the sche me,
rec ruited at lea st f

our people, and g ave the m orders) ; Un ite d S tat es v . M on c iv ais , 492 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir. 2007) (upholding four- level enha nceme nt for a drug supplier who g ave or ders a nd took a larg e shar e of the profits). Har ris also asser

ts that he r sentenc e wa s proce durally unrea sonable be cause the district court

“ fa ile d to make an a de qu a te re c or d c on c e rn ing the re a so ns fo r a pp lyingth e le ade rs hip
e nh anc e me nt[. ]” Ha

rr is’ s B r. a t 12 -1 3. Al tho ug h Ha rr is is c or re c t that c ourt s “ may not m e re ly summarily

adopt t h e fa ct u al finding s in the prese ntence repor t[ ,]” United States v. Tarwater , 308 F.3d 494, 518 ( 6th Cir. 2002), that only applies to disputed matters at sentenc ing. A nd here , Har ris’s
c ouns e l sp e c if

ic a lly c on c e de d th a t th e re wa s n o d isp ute a s to the fa c ts r e c ite d in the PSR. Th os eNo. 06-6280

Un ite d S tat es v . H ar ris

-6- fac ts, in turn, provided an ample basis for the c ourt’s finding . Har ris’s ar g ument is theref

ore w ithout merit. The district cour

t’s judgme nts in 04-CR-20392 and 05-CR-20250 are aff irmed.