P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 3505

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T ODD R OB I NS ON, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 09- cr - 00285- 001) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Jose L

. L i nares

A r gued M ar ch 24, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , A M B R O , a n d F U E N T E S ,

C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2010)2 J o s h u a P . C o h n , E s q . [ ARGUE D] C ohn, L i fl and, Pear l m an, H err m ann & K nopf Par k 80 Pl aza W es tO ne Saddl e B r ook, N J 07663 C ouns el f orAppel l ant S a m u e l A . S te rn , E s q . [ ARGUE D] G eor ge S. L eone, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 970 B r oad St r eet , R oom 700 N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. To d d Rob i n s o n p l e d g u i l t yt o c o n s p i r i n g t o s t e a l a nd c o n v e r tUn i t e d S t a t e s Tr e a s u r yc h e c k s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § § 6 4 1 an d 3 7 1

. O n ap p ea l he c h all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s cal cul at i on of hi s s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange of 27 t o 33 m ont hs im p ri s o n m en t bec au se in arriving at th e ra n g e the C o u rt i ncl uded the numberand dol l ar amount of checks convert ed by anotherper s on, T r avi s L ynn, w i t h w hom R obi ns on cont ends he di d not co n s pi r e. R obi ns on par t i ci pat ed i n a s cheme l ed byan i ndi vi dual named Je r r od J eff r es s . J eff

r es s prov ided “checkcas her s ”– R obi ns on and thr ee otheri ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng L ynn – w i t h s t ol en Tre as ur ychec ks , as w el l as fake i dent i fi cat i on that m at ched the names on the ch ecks , and dr ove them t o chec k-R o b in so n a lso d id n o t sp e c if ica llyo b jec t to a p a ra g ra p h in 1 hi s Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor tt hatstat ed thathe co n sp ir ed w ith Jef

fre ss, L yn n , G lend a B lack m o n , an d R icha rd D avi s . Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t7, ¶28. 3 c a s h in g s to re s . R o b in so n p led gu i l tyt o an in f o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith c o n sp irin g w ith “ o th e rs,” b u t th e re w a s n o sp e c if ic m e n tio n in h i s p l e a c o l l o q u yo f

a n yi n d i v i d u a l o t h e rth a n J e f f r e s s . At R o b in so n ’s s e n ten c in g , h e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e p e rso n a lly at t empt ed t o cas h fi ve che cks , w it h a t ot al i nt ended l os s of $5, 869. 00. R obi ns on m ai nt ai ned that he had no i nvol vement w i t h anyof the otheri ndi vi dual s w ho w or ked forJef fres s and th a t th e re f

o re n o n e o f th e ir c o n d u c t sh o u ld b e a ttribu ted to h im fo r sen tenc ing p u rpo ses. R o b inso n d id n o t dispu te, h o w ev er, t hat he knew w ho L ynn w as , t hat he knew L ynn w as w or ki ng forJ eff r es s , or t hat he and L ynn w er e i n t he s ame check- cas hi ng fac i l i t yatt he s ame t i m e on tw o s eparate o cca s i ons . T he 1 governm entar gued ats ent enci ng t hatR obi ns on w or ked w i t h t he o th e r c h e c k -c a s h e rs, p a rticu lar lyL yn n , an d sh o u ld b e h e ld r es pons ible fort hei rconductfors ent enci ng purpos es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tacc ept ed the governm ent ’ s po sit ion a s t o L ynn, s t at i ng, “I t hi nk her e byvi r tue of thei r pr es ence t ogether atthe c h e c k -c a s h in g sto re s o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a sio n s, c e rta in ly [R obi ns on’ s ] conductw i t h co- defe ndantL ynn, w hen all t aken in to c o n sid e ra tio n to g e th e r, m a k e s it c e rta in ly a p p ro p ria te to ap p lythe e n h an ce m en t. ” A

. 3 1

. T h e D istr ictC o u rtthere fo re cons i der ed the t ot al dol l aramount of che cks R obi ns on and Lynn a ttem p ted to c a sh a n d a p p lied a f o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t toTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i on pu r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S

. C. 2 § 3231. W e exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291.

R ob i n so n a lso urges that the co nspir acyi n thi s case w as a 3

“ h u b -a n d -sp o k e” conspi racy i n w hich severa l “m in ic o n sp ira c ies ” re v o lv e d a ro u n d o n e “ p o in t p e rso n ” a n d th e o n ly c o m m o n g ro u n d b e tw e e n th e “ sp o k e s” w a s th e ir re latio n sh ip to 4 R o b i n s o n’ s s ent ence underU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M an u al (“U S S G ”) § 2 B 1 .1 (b)(1 )(C ) (20 0 9 ) fo r a loss o f m o re t han $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 butl es s than $30, 000, and a tw o- l evel e nh a nc e mentba s e d o n 1 0 o rmor e vi c t i ms pu r s ua nt t o USSG § 2 B 1 .1 (b )( 2 )( A )( i)

. DI S CU S S I ON 2
R obi ns on ur ges t hatt he D ist r i ctC our ts houl d have a p p l i e d a t wo - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n t u n d e r USS G § 2 B1

. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) fora l os s of m or e than $5, 000 but l es s t han $10, 000 – bas ed on t he $5, 869 l os s i nt ended byR obi ns on al one – and s houl d not hav e app l i ed the enh an c e m e n tfor the n um ber of v i ct i m s. R obi ns o n co nt ends t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng t hat L ynn’ s conduct w as r eas onabl y for es eea bl e t o R obi ns on under U SSG § 1B 1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B ) , r el y i ng forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al on a n A p p lica tio n N o te in th e G u id e lin e s M a n u a l, sp e c if ica lly § 1 B 1 .3 , c m t. n . 2 (c )( 6 ). R obi ns on s t at es that h e w as oper at i ng par al l el t o, but i ndepende ntof, t he otherchec k- cas her s . H e c ont ends t hat 3t he per s on att he “hub” of the con sp ir ac y . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 12 ( ci t i ng Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Ke mp , 5 0 0 F

. 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 8 7 -93 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) )

. I n Ke m

p , w e emphas i zed thati n a hub- and- s poke cons pi r acyt her e i s a l ack of i nt er depe n d ence betw een the s pokes i n t hatt hei rr ol e i n the s cheme i s notdepende ntupon ot her s , norar e theyai ded byoratal l i nt er es t ed i n t he s ucce s s of t he other s . 500 F. 3d at290. R obi ns on cont ends thatthere w as no s how i ng of any“mat er i al i nt er depen d entcons pi r at or i al act i vity ” betw een h i m sel f and any o t her check -cas hers. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 13. H ow ever , i n Ke mp w e def i ned thi s t ype of i nt er depende nce a s a r equi r ementfora cons pi r acyconvi ct i on, n o t a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. I n footnot e 11 of hi s appel l at e br i ef, R obi ns on cont ends that 4 h e is e n t i t l ed to an ev i den t i aryheari ng t o d eci de w hetherhis a p p e a ra n c e w ith a n o th e r in d iv id u a l in a c h e c k -c a sh in g p lac e is s uff i ci entt o appl yan enha ncementunderU SSG § 1B 1. 3. H ow ever , he does notcont es tthathe w as i n a che ck- cas hi ng p lac e a t th e sa m e tim e a s L yn n , s o a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g w o u ld not b e p rob at i ve. T he s uffi ci encyof thi s evi dence for se n ten c in g p u rp o se s is d isp u ted , b u t th e f a c ts a re n o t. 5 “i nter dep end ence o f t he d efen dan t s (i

. e. , po oli ng of resources)

. . . is th e a p p ro p ri a te m e a s u re b yw h ic h to g a u g e jo in t a c tiv ity.” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 15. B eca us e R obi ns on’ s r ol e i n t he s cheme w as notdepende ntupon t he s ucce s s of the otherchec k- cas her s , nor d id th e ysh a re a n yp ro f its, h e a rg u e s th a t h e sh o u ld b e h e ld acc ount abl e fo r sent enci ng purpos es foronl yt he che cks he hi m s el f tr i ed t o cas h. 46 I ti s undi s put ed t hat R obi ns on and Lynn w er e ata che ckcas hi ng s t or e t ogetheron t w o occa sion s, t hatR obi ns on knew L yn n , and t hatR obi ns on knew L ynn w as cas hi ng s t ol en T r eas ur ychec ks s uppl i ed byJ eff r es s . B as ed on t hes e fac t s , t he gover n me n tu r g e s t h a ti twas n o tc l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s f o rt he D i s t r i ctC our tt o concl ude bya p rep o n d er ance of the evi dence th a t L yn n ’s c o n d u c t w a s f o re se e a b le to R o b in so n a n d w a s in fur ther ance of j oi nt l yunder t aken c r i m i nal act i vi t y , and w as t hus re le v a n t f

o r s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . W e re vi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of s ent enci ng e n h a n c em en ts f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kennedy , 5 5 4 F

. 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 2 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). U nderU SSG § 1B 1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B ) , R ob inson’ s gui del i ne offe ns e l evel i s det erm i ned, i n r el evantpart , bycons i der i ng: i n t he ca s e of a j oi nt l yundert aken c r i m i nal act i vi t y( a cr i m i nal pl an, s chem e, endea vor , or en terprise u n d ertak en b ythe d ef en d an t i n co n ce rt w i th others , w hetheror not charged as a cons pi r acy ) , al l r ea s onabl yfor es eea bl e ac t s and o m iss io n s o f

o th e rs in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e jo in tly u n d e rt a k e n c ri m in a l a c tiv ity . . . . T he appl i cat i on not es t o t he gui del i nes cl ar i fythi s bys t at i ng: [i ] n t he ca s e of a j oi nt ly u nder t aken c r i m i nal a c tiv ity , su b se c tio n (a )(1 )(B ) p ro v id e s th a t a defe ndanti s acc ount abl e fort he conduct ( act s and om i s s i ons ) of other s thatw as both:7 ( i ) i n fur t her ance of the j oi nt l yundert aken cr i m i nal act i vi t y ; and ( i i ) r eas onabl y for es eea bl e i n connec t i on w i t h that c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y.

. . . . In d et erm i ning t he scop e of the cri m i nal act i vit y th a t th e p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n t ag re e d to jo in tly under t ake ( i

. e. , the s cope of the speci fi c conduc t a n d o b j e c t i v e s e m b r a c e d b y th e d e f e n d a n t 's a g re e m e n t), th e c o u rt m a yc o n sid e r a n ye x p licit a g re e m e n t or i m pl i ci t agree m ent f ai rl y i nf err ed f rom t he conduct of t he def endant an d ot hers

. U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 1 B 1 .3 , c m t. n . 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e h av e su m m arized thes e g u idelines b ysay ing , “[ i] n order t o b e i ncluded i n d et erm i ning t he d efen dan t ' s of fense leve l, the l o ss r esu lt ing fro m the ac ts o r o m issi o n s o f o th ers m u s tb e : ‘ ( 1 ) i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h e j o i n t l y u n d e r t a k e n a c t i v i t y; (2) w it hi n t he s cope of t he def endant ' s agr eement ; and ( 3) re a so n a b lyf

o re se e a b le in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e c rim in a l ac tiv ity t h e d e f e n d a n ta g r e e d t o u n d e r t a k e . ’ ” U n it ed Stat es v. G r i cco , 2 7 7 F. 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 5 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u ot i ng U n i t ed Stat es v. D ul iga , 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 )).I n U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , w e u p h eld th e d istri ct co u rt ’s 5 fi ndi ng of an i m pl i ci tagr eemen t ba s ed l ar gel yon t he fa ctt hat defe ndantE dm undo B at oon w as oft en i n drug- deal erL i r i o D el R os ar i o’ s apart m entw her e drugs w ere s t or ed and s ol d. 280 F. 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 53- 54 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. I n P e r ez, the d istri ct co u rt found B at oon r esp ons i bl e fort he ful l amount of drugs i n the apart m entfors ent enci n g purpos es beca us e i tdet erm i ned that B a to o n p ro v id e d s e c u ri ty to D e l R o s a ri o . I d. a t 3 5 3 . O n a p p e a l, B a t o o n a r g u e d t h a th e n e v e ra g r e e d t o p r o v i d e s e c u r i t y . We di s m i s s ed thi s ar gum ents t at i ng: 8 T he i s s ue bef

or e the D i s t r i ctC our tats ent enci ng w as w hethert he che cks L ynn cas hed w er e i n fur t her ance of cr i m i nal act i vi t yj oi nt l yunder t aken by , an d r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e t o, R obi ns on. I n det erm i ni ng t he s cope of the j oi ntcr i m i nal u n d e rta k in g , the D istric t C o u rt c o u ld c o n sid e r a n “ im p licit a g re e m e n t f

a irlyin f e rre d f ro m ” R o b in so n a n d L yn n ’s c o n d u c t. U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 1B 1. 3, cmt

. n. 2. T h e g u id e lin e s s p e c if

ica llysta te th a t th e jo in t cr im in a l ac tiv ity d o es no t h av e t o b e ch arg ed as a co n sp ir ac y . I d. at § 1 B 1 .3 (a )(1 )(B ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . Ja rv is , 258 F. 3d 235, 245 ( 3d C ir

. 2001) ( fi ndi ng thatl os s es of vi ct i m s t hatt he defe ndant w as not hel d r es pons i bl e fori n t erm s of hi s convi ct i on m aynonethel es s pr oper l y be consi der ed under a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d as r el evant sent enci ng i nform at i on u n d e r U S S G § 1 B 1 .3 (a ))

. H ere , there w as e v iden ce fro m w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt coul d r eas onabl yi nferthatther e w as an i m pl i ci tagr eement betw een R ob i nson and L ynn t o cash st olen check s for J effress

. 5B a t o o n ' s a r g u me n t f a i l s t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t he a g re e m e n t c a n b e e x p licit o r an “ im p licit agr eementfai r l yi nferr ed fr om t he conduc tof the defe ndant and ot her s . ” U

. S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 1B 1. 3, cmt

. n. 2. H er e, fr om B a to o n ' s c o n d u c t ( sp e c if ica llyh is re m a in in g in D el R os ar i o' s apart m entfora s i gni fi cantamount of t i m e w hi l e s ever al other s came and w ent ) , the D i s t r i ctC our tfound an i m p l i ed agr eement betw een D el R os ar i o and B at oon t o pr ovi de s e c u ri ty. I d. at353- 54.

9 R obi ns on and L ynn knew eac h other , R obi ns on knew L ynn w as c a s h i n g s t ol e n c h e c k s f o rJ e f f r e s s , a n d t h e ywe r e i n t h e s a me check -c a sh ing st ore att he sam e t i m e on t w o o ccasi on s. M or eover , t her e w as evi dence thatJ eff r es s dr ove the checkcas her s t o and fr om t he check- cas hi ng l ocat i on, s o an i nfer ence coul d be dr aw n t hatR obi ns on and Lynn came and w entt o t he l ocat i on t ogether

. A ft err eas o n ab lyi nferr i ng fr om R obi ns on and Ly nn’ s conductt hat an i m pl i ci t agr eementexi s t ed betw een th e tw o , it f

o llo w s th a t th e c h e c k s L yn n c a sh e d w e re re a so n a b ly for es eea bl e t o R obi ns on and w er e i n fur t her ance of thei rj oi nt c rim in a l ac tiv ity

. T h e re f o re , th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t cle a rly err i n fi ndi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatR obi ns on and Ly nn w er e enga ged i n j oi ntcr i m i n al a ct i vi t y , thatthe c h e c k s L yn n c a sh e d w e r e w ith in th e sc o p e o f a n d in f u rth e ra n c e o f

thei r agr e e m e n t an d w e re re a so n a b lyf o re se e a b le10 t o R obi ns on, and thatther efor e R obi ns on w as r es pons i bl e for th e c h e c k s L yn n c a s h e d f o r s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . L as t l y , R obi ns on cont ends t hatthe vi cti m - bas ed enhanc ement s houl d not have been appl i ed t o hi s sen tence beca us e i t w as not appl i ed t o hi s co- defe ndantD avi s ’ s ent ence , d e sp ite th e P ro b a tio n D e p a rtm e n t’s h a v in g f o u n d D a v is c rim in a llyre sp o n sib le f o r 2 5 o u t o f

th e 2 7 c h e c k s in v o lv e d in t he s cheme. R obi ns on ur ges t hata di s t r i ct cour t , i n det erm i ni ng a n a p p r o p ria te s e n ten c e , is to c o n sid e r “ th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w ith s im ilar r e c o rd s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f

s im ila r c o n d u c t.” 18 U

. S.C

. A

. § 3553( a) ( 6)

. R obi ns on cont ends t hatbynot appl y i ng t he s ame enhance m ent t o hi s co- defe ndantD avi s , the D is tr ic t C o u rt ig n o re d § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ). W e d is a g re e . I n or der for us t o concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n notcons i der i ng t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng d isp a rities , R o b in so n w o u ld n e e d to sh o w th a t h e w a s s im ilarly s itu a te d to D a v is

. See U ni t ed Stat es v. C har l es , 467 F. 3d 828, 833 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[The defe ndant ] has nots how n t hatanyof the de fe n d an ts in th e D istri ct C o u rt ca ses t o w h ich h e c it es a re s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi m forpurpos es of compar i ng car eer offe nder s w i t h a hi s t or yof i nsti tuti onal m i s conduct , . . . and t her efor e r el evantfora § 3553(a ) ( 6) compar i s on. E ven i f he had, a mer e s i m i l ar i ty w o u ld notbe enough t o over come t he h igh leve l o f d ef

ere n ce w e a cc o rd se n tenc ing jud g es.”); U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 462 F. 3d 2 7 3 , 277- 78 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (“ A lth o u g h § 3 5 5 3 (a ) d o e s n o t re q u ire d istr ic t co u rts to cons i ders ent enci ng di s par i t yamong co- defe nd a n t s , i ta l s o does n o t p ro h ib it th e m f

ro m d o in g so ,” b u t “§ 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) b yits11 ter m s p lain lya p p lies o n lyw h e re c o -d e f e n d a n ts a re sim ilarly si tuated. ”). R ob i nson extr act s cert ai n i nfo rm at i on from D avis ’ P re se n ten c e R e p o rt, p re p a re d b yth e P ro b a tio n D e p a rtm e n t. H ow ever , R obi ns on fai l s t o di s cus s anys peci fi cs of D avi s ’ pl ea ag ree m en t, sen tenc ing arg u m en ts, o r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent enci ng anal y s i s . W e have no bas i s for concl udi ng t hatthe D istri ct C o u rt v iew ed D av is’ co n d u ct s im il arly to R o b inso n ’s in ter m s o f

th e v ictim s, p a rticu lar lyb e c a u se R o b in so n ’s v ictim en h an ce m en t r esu lt ed fro m h is be ing resp o n sible fo r L yn n ’s c o n d u c t a s w e ll. W e ca nnotconcl ude thatR obi ns on’ s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e bas ed on t he mer e al l egat i on of a di ffe r ence betw een the C ou rt ’s sent encing calcul at i on s i n the tw o cases. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons w e w i l l A FFIRM the J u d g m e n t a n d C o m m itm e n t O rd e r o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt

.