FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUG 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1591 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00440 -CR- 06-OD E- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN DOE #2 , a.k .a. MAURO SANCHEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 28, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Mauro Sanchez appeals his 32-m onth sentence for c onsp iracy to transport st ol en go od s i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1 a nd23 14
. A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. From January 2005 to October 2006, Sanchez w as a ca shier at a groce ry store that was par

t of a “ fencing” operation, in w hich profession al shopli fters
w oul d st ea l i nf

an t f orm ula and o the r pharm ac eutic al it em s f ro m r et ai le rs and de liv er the m to the gr oc er

y sto re in ex ch an ge f

or paym en t. S an ch ez w as one of five co-defe ndants charged in th e conspiracy
. Sanchez’ s role in the conspi racy wa s to receive the stolen good s from the shopl ifters. T he stolen go ods were subs eque ntl y

loa de d on to tru ck s be hin d th e gr oc er y sto re and transpo rt ed

by Sanc he z’ s c o- co nspi rator s to N ewY ork, w he re the y w er e sol d. A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at S an ch ez w as a cc ount ab le fo r a los s am ount

of $1. 8 m ill ionba se d onit s f ind ing s th at , dur ing the m onths i n which Sanchez w as involv ed in the consp iracy , an average of two truckloads per
m onth w er e de liv er ed

to N ewY ork, e ac h c ont ai nin g go ods w ithar et ai l va lue of ap pr oxi m at el y

$75 , 000. S ee U . S. S. G
. § 2B 1. 1( b) (1 )( I) ( ad din g 16 le ve ls t o a defendant’ s offense level if the loss exceeded $1,000,000 ). O n a ppe al , S an ch ez c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in hol din g hi m ac co unt ab le f

or the f ull va lue of

the m er ch an dis e shi ppe d to N ewY ork be ca useAlthough w e re view for clea r er ror f indings a s to the loss amount, whether the district 1 c ourt mis a pp lie d th e re le va

nt c on du c t pr ov isi on s o f § 1B 1. 3 in attr ibutin glos s to a

de fe nd ant i s re v i ew edd e n o v o . S ee M cC ri m m o n , 3 6 2 F. 3 d at7 2 8
. On ap p ea l , S an ch ez d o es n o tch al l en ge the district court’s c alculation of the loss amount resulting f rom the conspira cy , mere ly the attr ibutio n o f t

he fu ll l os s amou

nt t o h im. 3 his role was lim ited to pay ing for stolen m erchandise brought in to the grocery sto re and h e did

not handl e al l of

the m er ch an dis e that w as shi ppe d. U nde r the a dvi sor

y se nte nc ing gui de lin es , ade fe ndant m ay be he ld
ac co unt ab le f

or “ al l r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le a ct s and o m iss ion s of oth er s in fu rth eran ce o f th e joi nt ly und ert ak en cri m in al act iv it y .” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)( 1)(B)
. To be held re spon sible for the conduct of others, the conduct
m ust be both ( 1) “ in f

urthe ranc e of

the j oin tly

und er take n c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty ” an d (2 ) “ reas on ab ly fores eeab le in co nn ect io n wi th th atcri m in al act iv it y .” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1. 3 c m

t. n. 2; Unit ed

S tate s v. H unt er , 323 F . 3d 1 314, 131 9- 20 ( 11th Cir. 2003 ). When determ ining the loss am ountattributable to a particular de fe ndant c onvi ct ed

of ac onsp ir ac y

of fe nse , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust “ fi rs t de te rm ine the sc ope of

c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

the de fe ndant a gr ee d to und er take , and the n c onsi de r al l r ea sona

bly f or es ee ab le a ct s and o m iss ion s of oth er s inthe j oin tly unde rt ak enc ri m ina l a ct ivi ty . ” U nit ed S tate s v. Mc Cr im

m on, 362 F . 3d 7 25, 731 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation s m arks om itted). 14

T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in co nc lud ing that S an ch ez w as a cc ount ab le f or the f ull a m ount

of the los s r es ult ing f

ro m the f en ci ng c onsp ir ac y

w hil e he w as a m em be r. B y ple ad ing gui lty

and n ot o bj ec tin g to the f ac ts s et f orth i n th e pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ionr ep ort, S an ch ez c onc ed ed that the sc ope of

the
co nspi ra cy

he j oin ed w as to pay

pr of es sio na l sh opl if

te rs f or sto le n r et ai l go ods an d to transpo rt

tho se goo ds f

ro m the gr oc er

y sto re to N ewY ork, w he re the y w oul d be
so ld . See Un it edSta te s v . She lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Furthe r, a s a“ stand- in” m an ag er a t the gr oc er

y sto re , w ho a lso dir ec tly participated in the intake of the stolen m erchandise, Sanchez w as not a low-level part ic ipant who w as unaw ar e of the larg er

c onsp ir ac y . I t w as r ea sona bly foresee able that Sanchez wa s not th e only store em ploy ee handling st olen
m erchandise and that additio nal stolen m erchandise, not just that Sanchez handled pe rs ona lly , w oul d be inc lud ed in the shi pm en ts d el ive re d to N ewY ork. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in attr ibu tin g th e fu ll am ount of los s f ro m the c onsp ir ac y

to Sanc he z be ca

use the a ct s of

S an ch ez ’ s c o- co nspi rator s in furtherance of the conspiracy –purchasing m erchandise fr om professional shop lif te rs and transpo rt ing it

to N ewY ork to be sol d–w er e “ re as ona bly f o r e s e e ab l e ” t o h i m. AFFIRMED.