N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SEDR IC K B AGB Y, AKA C h arle s W arrol, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50465

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-01067-DSF-2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WATFORD a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd SM ITH, C h ie f Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 5

Appe lla nt Se d ric k B a gby

a ppe a ls the 90-m onth se nte nc e im pose d by the distric t c o urt following his guilty ple a to c onspira c y

to c om m it ba nk fra ud. Appe l la n t c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by : (1) a pply ing a two-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt unde r § 2B 1.1(b)(11)(C ) of the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s M anua l (“ USSG” ) for use of “ m e ans of ide ntific ation” an d (2) a pply ing a two-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r USSG § 2B 1.1(b)(10)(C ) for use of sophistic ate d m e ans, or, in thea lte rnat ive , unde r § 2B 1.1(b)(10)(B ) for a finding that a substa n tia l pa rt of Appe lla

nt’ s fra udule nt sc he m e wa s c om

m itte d outside of the U nite d State s. Appe l la nt a lso c onte nds tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

fa iling to give a de quate c onside ra tion to a ll of the fa c tors se t forth in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ). W e a ffirm . W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of these nte nc ing guide line s de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of theguide l ine s to the fa c ts of the c a se for a buse o f disc re tion, a

n d the distric t c ourt’ s fa c t ua l findings for c le ar e rror. Unite d State s v . Lambe rt , 498 F.3d 963, 966 (9th C ir. 2007). 1. M e a ns of Ide ntific ation

“ If the offe n se involve d . . . the una uthoriz e d tra

nsfe r or use of a

ny m e ans of ide n tific ation unla

wfully to produc e or obta in a

ny othe r m e ans of ide ntific ation . . . inc re a se by

2 le ve ls.” USSG § 2B 1.1(b)(11) (2013). Applic ation Note10(C )Pa ge 3 of 5

provide s the following e xam p le of c onduc t to whic h this e nha nc e m e nt would a pply :

“ A de fe nda

nt obta ins a

n individual’ s nam e and a d d re ss from a

sourc e (e .g., from

a drive r’ s lic e nse in a stole n wa lle t) a nd a pplie s for, obta ins, a nd subse que ntly

use s a c re dit c ard in tha

t individual’ s na

m e . In this e xam

ple , the c re dit c ard is the othe r m e a ns of ide n tific ation that ha s be e n obta ine d unla wfully .” Id . § 2B 1.1 c m

t. n.10(C )(ii)(II)
. W e find tha t the distric t c o urt prope rly a pplie d the e nha nc e m e nt, a

nd note tha

t the c irc um sta

nc e s pre se n te d in this c a se ne arly m irror those se t forth in thea

bove -c ite d e xam

ple . In the se c irc um sta

nc e s, the distric t c ourt prope rly a

p plie d a two-le v e l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r § 2B 1.1(b)(11)(C ). Se e Unite d State s v . Me le ndre

z , 389 F.3d 829 (9th C i r. 2004) (finding the e nha nc e m e nt a pplic a ble whe re the de fe n da

n t ha d use d stole n soc ia l se c urity num be rs to c re ate fa lse form s of ide ntific ation). 2. Sophistic ate d

M e ans or Substa

ntia l Pa rt C om m itte d Outside the Unite d State s

“ If . . . (B ) a

substa n tia l pa rt of a fra udule nt sc he m e wa s c om

m itte d from outside the Unite d

State s; or (C ) the offe n se othe rwise involve d sophistic ate d m e ans, inc re a se by

2 le ve l s.” USSG § 2B 1.1(b)(10). Appe lla nt a rgue s tha t the e nha nc e m e nt is not a

p plic a ble unde r e ithe r provision. W e find tha t the distric tPa ge 4 of 5

c ourt prope rly a

p plie d the e nha

nc e m e nt unde r the “ substa ntia l pa rt” provision, a

nd the re fore de c line to c onside r whe the r the e nha n c e m e n t would ha

ve a pplie d on

“ sophistic ate d m e ans” grounds. The distric t c ourt re a sona bly c onc lude d tha

t “ substa ntia l” ha s num e rous m e anings, inc luding “ im

porta nt, m ate ria l, of c onside ra

ble im p orta nc e , a nd a m ple .” The distric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t a substa ntia l pa rt of the sc he m e wa s c om m itte d from outside the Unite d State s ba se d on the fa c t tha t Appe lla nt a nd his c o-c onspira

tors re l a y e d pe rsona l ide ntify i ng inform ation of the ir vic tim s to a n individual in the Unite d Kingdom , who the n phone d C ha se B ank in orde r to re que s t the re pla c e m e nt c ards. The distric t c ourt wa s a l so pre se nte d with e vide nc e of a wire tra nsfe r be twe e n the Unite d State s a nd the UK. 3. Asse ssm e nt of § 3553(a) Fa c tors W e re vie w the se nte n c e im pose d by the distric t c ourt for re a sona ble ne ss. Unite d State s v . Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th C i r. 2006). Distric t c ourts a re to provide spe c ific re a sons for the ir se nte nc ing de c isions, suc h tha t the re c ord on a ppe a l de m onstra

te s e xplic it or im

plic it c onside ra tion of these nte nc ing fa c tors se t forth in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ). Unite d State s v . Mohame d , 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th C ir. 2006).Pa ge 5 of 5

The re c ord indic ate s tha

t the distric t c ourt thoughtfully a sse sse d the va

rious § 3553(a ) fa c tors a

nd wa s c ogniz ant of the c irc um sta nc e s pa rtic ula r to this offe nde r and this offe nse , inc luding Appe lla nt’ s diffic ult c hildhood upbringing, a nd his m ultipleprior ide n tity

the ft c onvic tions. W e like wise c annot c re dit Appe lla nt’ s argum e nt tha

t his se nte nc e fa ile d to c onside r the se n te nc e im pose d on his c ode fe nda n t, Dore n Ha rold W ard, a s M r. W ard wa s se nte n c e d a full m onth a fte r Appe l la n t. AFFIRM E D.