FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 32 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cr-2 00 74 -J AL-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
JAM IL MURNI,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st 16 , 20 11 )
Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
PER CURI AM:

Jam il Mur ni ap pe al s his 45 -m on th se nt en ce, im po se d pu rs ua nt to hi s gu il ty pl ea

to wire frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S. C

. § 1 3 4 3

. On ap pe al , Mu rn i arg ue s th at th edi st ric t co ur t m is ta ke nl y ap pl ie d a soph ist ic at ed m ea ns se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t to hi s

se nt en ce by crea ti ng a pe r se ru le th at th e us e of a sh el l co rp or at io n in th e co m m is si on
of a frau d was so ph is ti cat ed m ean s. Aft er t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s “ fi n d i n g s of fact rel at ed to th e im po si ti on of

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts , in cl ud in g a fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt us ed so ph is ti cat ed

m ean s, fo r cl ear erro r.” U n i t e d St at es v. Ghe rtl er, 60 5 F.3 d 12 56 , 12 67 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. A f in di ng of fact is cle arl y

erro ne ou s wh en we are “ le ft
wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s be en co m m it t e d

. ” Uni te d

St at es v. Ro be rts on , 49 3 F

. 3 d 1 3 2 2 , 13 30 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er, we rev i e w “ an y ru li ng s of la w m ad e by th e di st ric t co ur t in co nju nc ti on
wit h th e so ph is ti cat ed m ean s enh an cem en t de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Bara ka t, 13 0

F.3 d 1 44 8, 1 45 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)

. So ph is ti cat ed m ean s are de fin ed as “ es pe ci al ly co m pl ex or es pe ci al ly in tri cat e
of fen se co nd uc t pe rta in in g to th e ex ecu ti on or co nc eal m en t of an of fen se

. . . Co nd uc t

su ch as hi di n g a s s e t s or tra ns act io ns , or bo th , th ro ug h th e us e of fic ti ti ou s en ti ti es ,

co rp or at e sh el ls , or of

fs ho re fin an ci al acco un ts al so or di na ril y in di cat es so ph is ti cat ed

m ean s. ” U

. S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(9 )(C) & cm t. n.8 (B). A so ph is ti cat ed m ean s

en ha nc em en t do es no t req ui re ev ery act io n ta ke n in fu rth eran ce of th e frau d be

2so ph is ti cat ed , bu t rat he r th at th e “ to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed .” Ghe rtl er,

60 5 F .3d at 1 26 7.
Here, th e reco rd sh ows th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ru le ba se d so le ly o n th e

ex is te nc e of a sh el l co rp or at io n a n d i n st ead pr op erl y co ns id ered th e to ta li ty of th e

sc he m e. The co ur t sp eci fic al ly no te d: (1 ) th e reg is tra ti on of th e fic ti ti ou s co m pa ny,
Sea Fu el s Trad in g (“ SFT”); (2 ) th e op en in g of a ba nk acco un t fo r SFT; (3 ) th e us e of

se pa rat e ad dr es se s in th os e two tra ns act io ns ; (4 ) Mu rn i’s ap pl ic at io n as SFT to be a
fu el su pp li er fo r Ro y al Cari bb ean Cru is e Lin es (“ RCC L”); (5 ) th e us e o f a f a ls e
ad dr es s, th e crea ti on of co m pa ny of fic ers , an d th e us e of hi s so n’s so ci al se cu rit y

nu m be r fo r a fal se of

fic er in th at ap pl ic at io n; (6 ) th e act ua l co nd uc t th at Mu rn i

un de rto ok as SFT on ce th e ap pl ic at io n was gr an t e d -- bu y in g ch eap er fu el fro m

co m pe ti to rs , so m et im es wit h cas hi er’s ch eck s an d so m et im es in th e amo un ts of
hu nd red s of th ou sa nd s of do ll ars , an d th en bi ll in g RCC L fo r th e f u e l a s SFT at an
in fla te d pr ic e; an d (7) th e fact th at th is sc he m e “ was rep eat ed ov er 10 0 ti m es .” The

reco rd th eref

or e fai ls to sh ow a pe r se ru le , as it in di cat es th at a sh el l co rp or at io n was

no t th e so le fact or in th e d i s t r i c t co ur t’s de ci si on an d do es no t hi nt th at a sh el l

co rp or at io n al on e wou ld be en ou gh to warra nt a se nt en ce en ha nc em en t in fu tu re

cas es

.

3N o r do es th e reco rd rev eal th at th e im po si ti on of th e so ph is ti cat ed mea n s

en ha nc em en t co ns ti tu te d c le ar er ro r. T h e G u i d e l i n e s n o t e t h a t h i d i n g a s s e t s o r

tra ns act io ns th ro ug h th e us e of a co rp or at e sh el l “ or di na ril y in di cat es s o p h is ti cat ed

mea ns ,” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.8 (B), an d gi ve n th e nu m be r of fact or s th e di st ric t

co ur t con si de red in pr op erl y ap pl y in g t he to ta li ty of th e sc he m e te st , we are no t left
wit h a de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d a m is ta ke in it s

an al y si s. Mu rn i h as no t m et hi s b ur de n t o s ho w cle ar er ro r, an d we a ffi rm

. AFFIRMED.

4