FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1317 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 05- 0002 3- CR -H L -7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A , Plaintiff-Appellee , ve rs us MITCHELL L. ANDE RSON , D ef en dant- Appe llant .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 14 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and FA RR IS , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:Ander son’s plea a g ree ment waived a ny rig ht to appeal his sentenc e unless the se ntence 1 exceede d the advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e or the Gover

nment appea led his sentence . The a ppeal waiver does not apply

here , howeve r, bec ause Anderson’ s sentence is above the a dvisory Guidelines ra

ng e. 2 Mitchell Anderson appeals his 48 -m onth sentence im posed after he pled gui lty to poss es sio n of

5 or m or e co unt er fe it ide nti fi catio n do cum en ts, in vio latio n of 18 U. S. C. § 102 8(a)( 3) and (b)(1)( A) (ii). A nderson cont ends the dis trict court 1 er re d intw o w ay s whe n c al cu latin g hi s a dvi sor y G uid el ine s r an ge . F ir st, he asserts the district court erre d in calculating th e am ountof loss for the purpose of a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t o f th e o ffen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ). S e c o n d , h e c o n t e n d s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e di nc a l c u l a t i n g th e nu mb e r o f v i c t i ms fo r th e p ur

po se of atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t o f th e o ffen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1. 1( b) (2 )( A )( i) . A ft er r ev ie w , w e af

fi rm in part , and v ac at e an d r em an d in pa rt. I. BACKG ROUND A nde rs on a

ppe al s hi s se nte nc e fo r a se co nd t im e. A t A nde rs on’ s f ir st se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt outli ne d th e G uid el ine s c om put at ionw ith out m ak in g afin di ng of t he am ou ntof l os s o r th e n um be r of vi ct im s. United States v. A nde rso n , 216 F. App’ x 886 , 889 (11th Cir. 2007). Af ter stating the GuidelinesThe PSIdeter mined Ander son’s base of fense level wa s 6, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2 § 2B1.1( a)( 2). Ande rson re ceive d a 4-le vel incre ase be cause the loss was more tha n $10,000 but less than $30,000, pursuant to § 2B 1.1(b)( 1)(C); a 2- level incr ease beca use the off

ense involved 10 or mor e vic tim s, purs ua

nt t o § 2B 1. 1( b) (2 )( A) (i ); and a 2- le ve l in c re a se be c a

us e the of fe ns e inv olv e d ta

kin gle g iti mate c he c kin ga c c ount n umb e rs and

pr od uc ingc he c ks matc hin gfa lse identifications, pursuant to § 2B 1.1(b)( 10)(C)( i) and (ii). Anderson then r ece ived a 2- level reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility , pursuant to § 3E1.1(a ). The PSI ’s ca lculation of An de rs on ’s tot a l of

fe ns e le ve l w a s 1 2. An de rs on ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry c ate g or y wa s IV, and

his advisory Guidelines ra

ng e wa s 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. Despite the la ck of f

act f indings on amount of loss and victim impact, we conclude d 3 Ander son’s 48-month sentenc e wa s rea sonable. Upon r ehea ring , howeve r, we amende d our opinion by

vaca ting Ande rson’s sente nce a nd rema nding “ for the district c ourt to determine the amount of loss and victim impact, and then r esente nce the appellant.” United States v. Ande rson , 229 F. App’ s 866 (11th Cir. 2007). At the re sentenc ing, the Gover nment had a c ase a g ent, Danie l W. R eich, r eady and 4 available to testify

further reg ardingthe amount of loss and number of victims. 3 range w as 21 to 27 m onth s’ im prisonm ent and consid ering the 18 U. S. C.

2 § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, the c ourt i m

pose d an a

bove -Guid el ine s se nte nc e of 48 m onths’ im prisonm ent. Anderson appealed, and this Court rem anded the case for factual fin di ng s as to th e am ou ntof l os s an d v ic ti m im pa ct . Id. at88 9- 90 . W e n ot edwe co uld not c ondu ct am eanin gf

ul a ppe llate r ev ie wof

the se iss ue s ba se d onthe lim ite d r ec or d. Id

. 3 A t r es en te nc ing , the dis tr ic t j udge state d hi s be lie f that the f ind ing s inthe pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort ( PS I) w er e ad equa te and tha t f urthe r ev ide nc e on th e amo u n to f

l o s s an dnu mb e r

o f v i c t i ms wa s u n n e c e s s ary. A cc or din g to the 4 PS I, A nde rs on and c ode fe ndant K ev in R uf us h ad atot al of 16 c ount er fe it dr ive rs ’ lic en se s w ith16 d if

fe re nt n am es and a

tot al of 36 c ount er fe it ch ec ks w ithr out ing4

an dac co u n tnu m

b er s b el o n g i n g t o tru e a cc o u n th o l d er s . Th e P SI s t at ed , “ [a ]s suc h, the los s e qua ls at l ea st $ 13, 670. 81 and the vic tim s to ta l at l ea st thirty -s ix t o inc lud e six te enle git im at e ac co unt hol de rs , se ve n f

inanc ia l i nst itutio ns, tw el ve Best Buy stores, and on e grocer

y store.” A nde rs on o bj ec te d to the am ount of los s inthe P SI , arg uin g hi s codefendant had cashed som e of the chec ks and that he and h is codefendant wer e

“ acco un tabl e fo r th e [ei gh t] che ck s t ha t wer e actua ll y ne go ti at ed .” A nde rs on a lso objec ted to the num

ber of victim s, ar guin g with eight negot iated checks there could be on ly

eight victim s. W

hile adm itting 12 of the 36 checks list ed in the PSI related to him , he argued there w ere no victim s for the checks that w ere never negotiated. T hen he stated, “ [w ] e contend the total victim s to be nine to twelve, so m et hi ng alo ng th os e g ui de li ne s.” The district court stated, “ I don’ t see any thing here that has changed other than a technicality

when the Court f

ailed to enum erate the victim s and m ake a fi ndi ng c onc er

nin g th e los s. ” T he c ourt the n f ound the los s attr ibu ta

ble to A nde rs on w as $13 , 670. 71 and the num be r of vic tim s w as 36, and a cc ep te d th e PS I. T he c ourt a ga in s en te nc ed A nde rs on t o an a

bove -Guid el ine s se nte nc e of 48 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent and stated it had cons idered the 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) fa ct or s. A nde rs on a

ppe al s hi s se nte nc e im

pose d up on r es en te nc ing .5 II. D ISCU SSION A. Stand ard of Re view

“ [A ] dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d be gina ll se nte nc ing pr oc ee din gs b y c or re ct ly calculating the applicable Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States , 128 S . Ct . 586, 596 ( 2007 ). I n a ddr es sin g ac ha lle nge to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c al cu latio n of the G uid el ine s r an ge , w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or and its appl ic at ionof

the G uid el ine s to tho se f ac tua l f ind ing s de novo . United States v. Massey , 443 F. 3d 81 4, 818 (11th Cir. 2006). B. Ca lc ula tio n of

L oss A m ount Anderson contends th e district court’ s finding of the loss am ountwa s er ro ne ous. H e as se rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in tw o w ay s: ( 1) hol din g hi m ac co unt ab le f

or los s th at w as c re at ed

by the a ct s of

his c ode fe ndant and (2) holding him

accountable for hy

poth etical losses associated with checks that were n otne go ti at ed . 1. Respon sibili ty for codefenda nt’s condu ct T he G uid el ine s pr ovi de r el ev an t c ondu ct is to b e take n in to a cc ount in determ ining the offense level. U .S .S .G . § 1B1. 3. S ection 1B1.3(a) provides re le vant c ondu ct

inc lud es :6

(1 )( A ) al l a ct s and o m iss ion s c om m itt ed , a ide d, abe tte d, c ouns el ed , co m m an de d, ind

uc ed , pr oc ur ed , or

w ill fu lly c au se d by

the de fe ndant; an d (B) in the case of a j ointl y undertaken crim inal activity (a c rim inal plan, sc he m e, e nde av or , or e nte rp ri se und er

take n by the de fe ndant i n co nc er t w ithoth er s, w he the r or

not c harg ed a s ac onsp ir ac y ), a ll re as ona bly f or es ee ab le a ct s and o m iss ion s of oth er s inf

urthe ranc e of th e jo i n t l y un d e rt a k e nc r i mi n a l a c t i v i ty, that oc curr ed

dur ing the c om

m iss ionof

the of fe nse of c onvi ct ion , in pr ep ar at ionf

or that of fe nse , or in the c our se of

a tte m pti ng t o avoi d detection or responsib ility for that offe nse. Se e als o U

nited Sta tes v . M

cC rim m on , 362 F . 3d 7 25, 732 -3 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) (aff irming di st ric t co ur t’s fi nd in g t ha t d efen da ntwas re sp on si bl e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 1B 1. 3( a) (1 )( B) f

or tot al los s c au se d inc our se of c onsp ir ac y ); United States v. LaF raug h , 893 F . 2d 3 14, 317 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( hol din g se nte nc ing c ourt m ay f ind d e f e n d an ta c c o u n t ab l e f

o r a l l l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g f

r o m a c t s o f

p art i c i p an t s i ns a me co ur se of c on du ct ). A nde rs on’ s arg um en t he sho uld onl y be a ttr ibu te d on e- ha lf

the tot al los s is m er itl es s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as pe rm itt ed to attr ibu te to A nde rs on the tot al los s in vo lv edin th e co un te rfei t ch ecksch em e as rel ev an t co nduc t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 1B 1. 3( a) (1 )( A ) an d ( B) . I t i s un dis put ed ( 1) A nde rs on and R

uf us w er e tr av el ing tog ethe r co m

m itt ing the sam e of

fe nse s, ( 2) c ount er fe it ch ec ks w er e fo und in the ir car an d li nke d to f

al se ide nti fi catio ns p oss es se d by both A nde rs on and R

uf us, and7

(3 ) A nde rs on p le d gu ilty

to poss es sin g c ount er fe it ide nti fi catio ns. T hus, a lth ough An d er s o nwa s n o tch ar g edwi th a c o n s p i ra cy, h e a i d edan dab et t edRu fu s ’s co nduc t and p ar

tic ipate d inthe c ount er fe it ch ec k sc he m e j oin tly w ithRu fu s. 2. Non-negotiated checks Se ct ion2B 1. 1 of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de s th e of fe nse le ve l f

or offenses involv ing coun terfe it checks. U .S .S .G . § 2B1. 1. I f the loss was m ore than $1 0, 000, the of

fe nse le ve l i s in cr ea se d by 4. U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) (1 )( C) . T he application n otes provid e the general r ule that loss am ountis the greater of actual los s or int en de d lo ss. U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, c om m en t. ( n. 3( A )) . A ct

ua l l oss is “ the reas on ab ly fores eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th atres ul te d fr om

th e o ffen se ,” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, c omm ent. ( n.3(A )(i)) , while the intend ed loss is “ the pecuniary harm that was in te nd edto res ul t fr om th e o ffen se ,” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(A) (ii )). In te nde d lo ss i nc lud es “ int en de d pe cuniary harm that w oul d have be enim poss ibl e or unlikelyto occur . . . . ” Id . R ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le pe cuniary

harm is the

“pe cuniary

harm that the de fe ndant k

ne wor , und er

the c ir cum stanc es , r ea sona bly shou ld h av e known, w as apot en tia l r es ult of the of fe nse . ” U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, com m ent. ( n.3(A )(iv)). In ca lculating th e loss, “ [t] he court need only m ake a re as ona ble e sti m at e of

the los s. T he se nte nc ing j udge is in a uni que pos iti on t o as se ss the e vid en ce and e sti m at e the los s ba se d up on tha t e vid en ce . F or thi s8

reason, the c ourt’ s loss d etermination is entitled to app ropriate defe rence. ” U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1 com

m ent. ( n.3(C) ). Adis tr ic t c ourt m ay

c onsi de r the f

ull f ac e va lue of

c ount er fe it ch ec ks i n m ak in g areas on ab le cal cu la ti on of i nt en de d l os s. Se e U nited Sta tes v . G rant , 431 F. 3d 7 60, 765 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I n G rant , w e he ld the de fe ndant’ s in te nt i s param ountand stated a district court is justified in includin g a check’ s full face value in the loss calculation wher e the evidence indicates the defendant intended to us e th e fu ll face va lu e o f th e ch eck . Id . at 7 64 -6 5. W ithr eg ar d to c al cu latin g th e am ount of los s, a s no te d inthe c om m en tary to U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, the lo ss is th e g reat er o f actua l l os s o r in te nd edlo ss . U.S.S.G. § 2B 1. 1, c om

m en t. ( n. 3( A )) . T he P SI A dde ndum state s th e tot al los s of $13, 670. 81 w as the a ct

ua l l oss . T his los s am ount inc lud es $7, 619. 69 i n unne got iate d c ount er fe it ch ec ks and $ 6, 051. 12 i n r ec ei pts f ro m pur ch as es a ct

ua lly m ad e w i th co u n t er fe i tch ec k s . Th e c o u n t er fe i tch ec k s i nAn d er s o n ’s an dRu fu s ’s poss ession were not nego tiated; therefore, they could no t have caused an actual pecuniary harm “ that resulted from

the offense. ” See U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, c om m en t. (n.3(A )(i)) (defining actual loss as “ the reasonably foresee able pecuniary

harm that resulted from

the offense”) . T hus, the $6, 051. 12 i n purc ha se s w as the a ct ua l l oss , an d $ 13 ,67 0.8 1 was th e in te nd edlo ss . See U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, c om m en t.9

(n.3(A )(ii)) (d ef

ini ng i nte nde d lo ss a s “ the pe cuniary harm that w as int en de d to res ul t fr om

th e o ffen se ”). T he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in re ly ing on the P SI f

or it s f ind ing that $1 3, 670. 81 wa s the actual loss. H owever , any such error w as harm less because the district co urt attr ibu te d to A nde rs on the gr eate r of the a ct ua l or int en de d lo ss a s sh ow n by th e rec ei pt s an d c ou nt erfe itch eck s. See U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1, c omm ent. ( n.3(A )) (p ro vid ing the ge ne ra l r

ule that l oss am ount

is the gr eate r of

a ct ua l l oss or int en de d lo ss) ; United States v. F oley , 508 F . 3d 6 27, 634 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) (s tatin g an err or is harm less if it does notsubst antially aff ect the defe ndant’s sentence) ; see als o G rant , 431 F. 3d at 765 (holding “ when an individu al possesses a stol en check

. . . f or the pur pose of c ount er fe iti ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt do es not c le ar ly e rr w he n it use s th e fu ll fa ce va lue of that st ole n c he ck

in m ak ing ar ea sona

ble c al cu latio n of the intended lo ss”). Beca use the intend ed loss of $13 ,670.81 wa s greater than $10, 000, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in im posi ng a f our -l ev el e nhanc em en t f

or loss o f m ore than $10,000 u nder U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)( C). C. Ca lc ul at io n o

f Nu mbe r o

f Vi ct ims Anderson also asserts the district court’ s finding of ten or m ore victim s was er ro ne ous. A n of

fe nse le ve l i s in cr ea se d by tw o if the of fe nse inv olv ed

te n or m ore victim s. U .S .S .G . § 2B1. 1(b)(2)(A )(i). T he com m entary to § 2B1.1 defines10

“ vic tim ” as “ any

pe rs on who s ust ai ne d any part of the a ct ua l l oss , ” an d “pe rs on” inc lud es ind ivi dua ls and c or por at ion s. U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, c om m en t. ( n. 1) . “ [T ] he num ber of victim s is defined in relation to th e loss calculation,” and the district co ur t s ho ul d a tt em

ptto co nn ectth e n um

be r of vi ct im s t o i ts lo ss cal cu la ti on . Foley , 508 F . 3d at 63 3- 34; see also United States v. Le ach , 417 F . 3d 1 099, 110 7 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding , in a theft of m ail by postal em

ploy ee ca se, a

district co urt e rr ed

in co unt ing a s vi ct im s, pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) (2 ), ind ivi dua ls who di d n otsu fferan y

pa rt o f th e actua l l os s) . Si m ilar to h is arg um en t f or los s am ount , A nde rs on f ir st c ont en ds h e shou ld not be he ld a cc ount ab le f

or the vic tim s of

his c ode fe ndant. T his arg um en t f ai ls here f or the sam e re asons it fails with regard to loss am ount . The district court w as pe rm itt ed

to attr ibu te to A nde rs on the tot al num be r of vic tim s in vol ve d inthe co unt er fe it ch ec k sc he m e as r el ev an t c ondu ct und er U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3( a) (1 )( A ) an d (B). H o w e v e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e di nc a l c u l a t i n g th e nu mb e r o f v i c t i ms be ca use it did not a tte m pt t o c onne ct

the num be r of vic tim s to the a ct

ua l l oss cal cu la ti on . See F

oley , 508 F. 3d at 633 -34. T he PSI , which the dist rict court ad opt ed , sum

m ar ily c onc lud es that the 36 v ic tim s w er e 16 l eg iti m at e ac co unt hol de rs , 7 f

inanc ia l i nst itutio ns, 12 B es t B uy sto re s, and 1 gr oc er

y sto re . W e haveWe decline to addr ess Ander son’s arguments reg ardingwhether the district court 5 counted unne g otiated che cks in its victim calculation, or whe ther the district c ourt counted multipl e victims for a

single chec k. Be cause we c annot tell how the district cour t arrive d at the number of 36 vic tims, we do not know whether the district court c ommitt ed these actions that An de rs on c la ims wo uld

be e rr or . B y

me nti on ingthi s, we e xpre ss n o o pin ion on wh e the r t he se a c tio ns wo uld

or wo uld no t be e rr or ; w e on ly

c on c lud e the numbe r o f v ic tim s mu st be tied to the actua l loss calculation. 11 co m be d th ro ugh the r ec or d atte m pti ng t o li nk the 36 l ist ed vic tim s to the am ount of a ct ua l l oss , but

ne ith er the P SI nor

the dis tr ic t c ourt atte m

pte d to c onne ct

the se victim s to the am ountof actual loss in any way . A dditi onally , despite re peated 5 oppo rt uni tie s to do s o at or al arg um en t, the G ove rn m en t c oul d pr ovi de no b as is f or th e PSI’s c al cu la ti on of 3 6 v ic ti m s. T he G ove rn m en t arg ue s r em an d f or r es en te nc ing is unne ce ssary be ca use the di st ric t co ur t wo ul d i m

po se th e sa m e se nt en ce o f 48 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt ha s tw ic e im pose d an a

bove -Guid el ine s se nte nc e of 48 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent, it has done so from a possibl y

im properly calculated be nc hm ark . Se e G all , 128 S . Ct . a t 59 6 ( expla ini ng the G uid el ine s are the start ing poin t and the initi al benchm ark of the sentence) . The district court ver y we ll m ay im pose the sam e se nte nc e ag ai n, but “ a dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d be gina ll se nte nc ing p r o c e e d i n g s b y co rre ct lycalculating the applicable Guidelines range.” Se e id. (e m pha sis a dde d) . T hus, a lth oughw e ar e loath t o do so, w e m ust va cate and rem an d fo r res en te nc in g.Be cause the district court e rre d in its calculation of the Guide lines rang e, we do not 6 addre ss whether

Ander son’s 48-month sentenc e is substantively rea sonable. We in no way sug g est 48 months’ imprisonment would or would not be a re asonable sentenc e. 12 III. C ONC LUS ION A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in co nc lud ing that $1 3, 670. 81 w as the am ount of a ct ua l l oss r athe r than th e int en de d lo ss, thi s e rr or w as harm le ss b ec au se th e d is tri ctco ur t at tri bu te d t o An de rs on th e g reat er o f th e actua l o r in te nd edlo ss . Be ca use the int en de d lo ss w as gr eate r than $1 0, 000, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in im po si ng a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r lo ss of m or e th an $1 0,0 00 . Thu s, we affir m the district court on thi s issue. H ow ev er , w e va cate and r em an d inpart be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in its calculation of the num

ber of victim s as it m ade no attem pt to conn ect the num

ber of victim s to the actual loss. On r em and, the district court is instructed to conn ect ea chvic tim

to the am ount

of a ct ua l l oss . 6 AF FIRMED IN P AR T, VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED IN P AR T.