FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 07, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 78 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 02 52 -J AL-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us ANTONIO BRADSHAW , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ant on io Brad sh aw ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r cre di t ca rdfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( a)(2 ) (“ Co un t 1 ”), an d t wo co un ts of a gg rav at edid en ti ty the ft,in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ) (“ Co un ts 2 an d 3 ”), an d h is 72 -m on th

se nt en ce. He pre se nt s thr ee ar gu m en ts forou r co ns id erat io n. Aft er re vi ew of th e 1 pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he reco rd , we affi rm . I. Brad sh aw fi rs t cl ai m s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f pr ev io us frau d c on vi ct io ns un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 40 4( b) . Im

m ed ia te ly after t he co urt en te redth e co nv ic ti on s i nt o e vi de nc e—o ve r Brad sh aw’s ob

jecti on—t he co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t the pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s co ul d b e u se d t o d et erm in e whe th er Br ad sh aw “ ha d t he st at e o f m in d o r in te nt ne ces sa ry to co m m itth e cri m es ch arg ed ” o r to he lp est ab li sh“ th e id en ti ty of [Bra ds ha w] . . . as th e p erp etrat orof t he cri m e ch arg edin th e in di ctm en t.” Brad sh aw co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin all owi ng th e jury to c on si de r hi s pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of e st ab li sh in g i de nt it y be cau se th e ear li er cri m es lac ke d s uf

fic ie ntdi st in ct iv e ch arac te ris ti cs to est ab li sh a m odus op eran di . Mo reo ve r, th e in st an t o ffen se s s ha redno ch arac te ris ti cs with h is pre vi ou s tra ns gr es si on s o ut si de of t he factth ateach in vo lv edfrau d. Br ad sh aw al so ass ert s
Two diffe rent c ourses of c onduct wer e the f ocus of B radsha

w’s indictment and tria l. 1 First, the g overnme nt alleg ed that in August 2005, Bra dshaw ope ned a c redit ca rd in another individual’s (“Vic tim 1”) name. Sec ond, approximately 2 months later, B radsha

w ac cesse d an unknowingcouple’ s (“Vic tim 2 and Victim 3”) line of c redit through an “a uthorized user” c redit car d that had bee n issued in his name. The latter is known as an a ccount “ take ove r.” 2th atth e o th er ev id en ce o ffer edat t ria l was no t s uf fic ie ntto ren de r th e d is tri ct co urt’s erro r ha rm le ss . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to adm itev id en ce p ur su an t t o Ru le 40 4( b) for

anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 7 F .3d10 82 , 10 91 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Ru le 40 4( b) st at es :

Evi de nc e of ot he r cri m es , wro ng s, or act s is no t adm is si bl e to pr ov e th e ch arac te r of a pe rs on in or de r to sh ow a c t i on in co nf orm ity th erewi th . I t may, ho wev er, be adm is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , su ch as pr oo f of m ot iv e , op po rtu ni ty, i n t en t, pr ep arat io n, pl an , kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, or ab se nc e of m is ta ke or a cci de nt. . . . Whe n d et erm in in g wh ethe r ex tri ns ic -o ffen se ev id en ce m ay be in tro du cedto pro ve id en ti ty, th e li ke ne ss of t he pri oran d c ha rg edoff en se s i s t he “ cru ci al co ns id erat io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph ak ni ko ne , 60 5 F .3d10 99 , 11 08 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ The ph y si cal si m il ari ty m us t b e su ch th atitm ark s t he off en se s as th e ha nd iwo rkof the accu se d. In ot he r wor ds , th e ev id en ce m us t d em on st rat e a m odus op eran di ,” ot he rwis e th e ev id en ce i s i na dm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) as p ro of of id en ti ty. Se e id
. W e rev ie w pre se rv edev id en ti ary ob jecti on s fo r ha rm le ss erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba ker , 43 2 F .3d11 89 , 12 02 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The g ov ern m en t be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atanerro r is ha rm le ss . Pha kn ik on e , 60 5 F .3d at11 09 . “ Rev ers al is warran te d o nl y if t he erro r res ul te d i n a ctua l p reju di ce

3be cau se itha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e m ay co ns id er the pr es en ce o f ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t as a fact or in de te rm in in g t ha t an erro r is harm le ss . Id
. Fo r pu rp os es of r es ol vi ng th is ap pe al , we ass um e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred by ini ti al ly allo win g t he jury to co ns id er Br ad sh aw’s pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s t o es tabl is h i de nt ity

forth e in st an t o ffen se s. Ho wev er, s uc h a n e rro r do es no t warra ntrev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on s b ecau se th ere was ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e ap artfro m

th es e co nv ic ti on s t o e st ab li sh Brad sh aw’s id en ti ty as th e p erp etrat orof th e ch arg edoff

en se s; th us an y

erro r in adm it ti ng th e p rev io us co nv ic ti on s was ha rm le ss . Brad sh aw st at es th athi s “ de fen se at t ria l was th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pr ov e h e was th e p ers on who frau du le nt ly pos se ss edan d u se d” th e cre di t ca rd s at is su e. The g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedam pl e ev id en ce t o d ire ct ly refut e th at . For ex am pl e, as to th e cre di t ca rdob ta in edin Vict im 1’s n am e, th e g ov ern m en t subm it te d t he fol lo win g e vi de nc e to de m on st rat e th atBrad sh aw co m m it te d c red it cardfrau d: (1) a cred itcardwas o pe ne d u nd er the vi ct im ’s nam e an d s hi pp edto Brad sh aw’s Flo rid a ad dr es s; (2) Brad sh aw’s fir stna m e was th e p as swo rdfor th e on li ne ap pl ic at io n fo r th e acc ou nt ; (3 ) th e o wne r of a pa wn s ho p i de nt ifi ed 4Brad sh aw as th e in di vi du al who pa wne d s ev eral it em s an d t he n b ou gh t the m ba ck us in g t he frau du le nt ly obt ai ne d c red itcard . Furt he rm or e, “ Ant on io Brad sh aw” was ad de d a s an au th or iz edus er o f Vic ti m 2 an d 3 ’s cred itli ne aft er a p ho ne cal l th atori gi na te d fr om

a nu m be r th atfrau d i nv es ti ga to rs tra cedto Brad sh aw. The reco rdals o c on ta in s t es ti m on y fro m a nu m be r of m erch an ts who im

pl ic at ed Brad sh aw in us in g b ot h c red itcard s. Afterco ns id erat io n o f th e rec or d e vi de nc e, 2 itis cle ar tha t, ev enwitho utth e p rev io us co nv ic ti on s, the go ve rn m en t p ro du ced ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f Bra ds ha w’ s g ui lt . Accor di ng ly, ev enif t he re was erro r, itwas h arm le ss . II. Brad sh aw ne xtarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th e ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft c ha rg es . Spe ci fic al ly, he cl ai m s t ha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto est ab li sh th athe kn ew he ha d u se d id en ti fic at io n t ha t b el on ge d t o an a ctua l p ers on .

“ [A de fen da nt ’s] co nv ic ti on m us t b e uph el d i f an

yrat io na l trie r of

factco ul d ha ve fou ndth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. We Two additional fa cts minimi ze any potential for injurious ef fec t. First, the g overnme nt 2 never argued, to the cour

t or the jury , that the pre vious convictions should be considere d for purposes of e stablishing identity . More importantly , duringjury instructions, the district court properly direc ted the jury

to consider the pr evious convictions only in determiningwhether Br adshawpossessed the ne cessa ry intent to commit t he crimes. That mitigate d the initially err oneous statement that the jur y could consider

the pre vious convictions for identity purposes. 5vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi th all

reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go mez -Ca stro , 60 5 F .3d12 45 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ To p ro ve a vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A, the ev id en ce m us t es tabl is h ‘tha t the de fen dant : (1 ) kn owi ng ly tran sf erre d, p os se ss ed , or u se d; (2) th e m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n o f an othe r pe rs on ; (3 ) wit ho utlawf ul au th or it y ; (4 ) du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o afel on y

enum erat edin § 1 02 8A( c).’” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba rr in gt on , __ F.3 d _ _, No . 09 -1 52 95 , sl ip op . at 2 4 (1 1th C ir. Au gu st11 , 20 11 ) (fo ot no te om it te d) (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu rtado , 50 8 F .3d60 3, 6 07 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m)). The refo re, the go ve rn m en t m us t d em on st rat e th atth e d efen da nt kn ew th atth e m is us edid en ti fic at io n b el on ge d t o a n a ctua l p ers on . Flo resFig ue ro a v . Uni te d Sta tes , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 88 6, 1 89 4 (2 00 9) . Thatkn owl ed ge m ay be pr ov enwith c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce. Gomez -Ca stro , 60 5 F .3dat 1 24 9. “ Bo th th e ci rcu m st an ces inwhi chanoff en de r ob ta in eda vi ct im ’s id en ti ty andth e o ffen de r’s la te r m is us e o f th atid en ti ty can s he d l ig hton th e o ffen de r’s kn owl ed ge ab ou t tha t id en ti ty.” Id . at 1 24 8. The go ve rn m en t p ro vi de d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o d em on st rat e th atBrad sh aw po ss es se d t he requi si te kn owl ed ge to co m m itag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft b ot h b y 6op en in g ane w cred itcardacco un t an d “ ta ki ng ov er” a n e xi st in g c red itcard

acco un t. Inth e “ ta ke ov er” c irc um st an ce, Bra ds ha w kn ew th atth e acc ou ntco ul d on ly exi stif i t wer e co nn ect edto anactua l i nd iv idua l. Si gn ifi can t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce al so de m on st rat es th atBrad sh aw was aware t ha t i nf orm at io n u se d t o op enth e n ew cred itcardwas c on ne ct edto anactua l p ers on . Firs t, Vi ct im 1 te st ifi edth atth e ap pl ic at io n s ub m it te d c on ta in edhi s co rrec t n am e, bi rth da y , and so ci al sec ur it y

nu m be r. Als o, a r eas on ab le jury co ul d i nf er tha t Br ad sh aw wou ld no t h av e so ug htcred itus in g Vi ct im 1’s i de nt ifi cat io n i f he di d n otbe li ev e itto be co nn ect edto anin di vi du al with a n a ctua l cr ed ithi st ory . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Holmes , 59 5 F .3d12 55 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m). Mo reo ve r, a Ch as e of fic ia l t es ti fie d tha t a f

ic ti ti ou s i de nt it y

co ul d n otbe us edto sec ur e a l in e o f cred it . Evenwitho utth attes ti m on y , a jury, ba se d o n o rd in ary hu m anex pe rie nc e, co ul d qui te eas il y

co nc lu de th atcred itcardco m pa ni es subjec t ap pl ic at io ns to a sc reen er p ro ces s b efo re s ub jecti ng th em se lv es to th e ri sk s o f ex te nd in g c red it . Cf
. Gomez -Ca stro , 60 5 F .3dat 1 24 9 (e xp la in in g t ha t a jury ’s eve ry da y ex pe rie nc e wou ldall ow t he m

to co nc lu de th atgo ve rn m en ts ve rif y anap pl ic an ts id en ti ty prio r to is su in g d oc um en ts ). Bas edon th atev id en ce, a jury co ul d d et erm in e th at Brad sh aw kn ew th e id en ti fy in g i nf orm at io n h e u se d t o o bt ai n acred itcardin Vict im 1’s n am e was co nn ect edto anactua l i nd iv idua l. The refo re, we co nc lu de 7th atreas on ab le juro rs co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Br ad sh aw kn ew th e id en ti ti es he us ed

were co nn ect edwith a ctua l p eo pl e. III. Fi na ll y , Brad sh aw arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y fai li ng to co ns id er the rel ev an t co m m en tary to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pri orto im po si ng two pa rti al ly con se cu ti ve sen te nc es forhi s ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft co nv ic ti on s. He p oi nt s o utth atth e Gui de li ne s s etou t s ev eral fact or s t ha t m us t b e co ns id eredbe fo re i m

po si ng sen te nc es form

ul ti pl e co un ts of c on vi ct io n, U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.2 , andth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto refe ren ce ea ch of t ho se fact or s dur in g se nt en ci ng . Brad sh aw, ho wev er, d idno t ra is e th is ob jecti on to th e d is tri ctco urt. 3 Pu rs uantto § 1 02 8A, a d efen da ntco nv ic te d o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft i s requi redto serve a two -y ear t erm of i m pr is on m en t co ns ecu ti ve to an y ot he r se nt en ce i m

po se d. If ade fen da ntha s m ul ti pl e co nv ic ti on s u nd er § 10 28 A, th e di st ric t co urt h as di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er the se sen te nc es sh ou ldrun co nc urren tl y

with e ach ot he r. U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.6 cmt. n .1(B ); se e a ls o § 1 02 8A( b) (4 ). Thi s co m m en tary di rect s t he co urt t o c on su ltth e co m m en ta ry to

Sentencingarguments raised f or the fir st tim e on appe al, such a s Br adshaw ’s, ar e 3 revie wed f

or plain er

ror. United States v. Bonilla , 579 F.3d 1233, 1238–39 ( 11th Cir. 2009), cert denied, 130 S. Ct . 2361 (2010). 8U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.2 for gu id an ce i n m ak in g t ha t d et erm in at io n. U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.6 cmt. n .1(B )
. It p ro vi de s:

Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r m ul ti pl e co un ts of 1 8 U.S.C. 10 28 A sh ou ldrunco nc urren tl y with, o r co ns ecu ti ve ly to, each ot he r, th e co urt s ho ul d c on si de r th e fo ll owi ng no n- ex haus ti ve li stof f

act or s: (i) The n atur e an d s eri ou sn es s o f th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se s. Fo r ex am pl e, th e co urt s ho ul d c on si de r th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of i m

po si ng co ns ecu ti ve , or p art ia ll y co ns ecu ti ve , term s o f im

pr is on m en t fo r m

ul ti pl e co un ts of 18 U.S.C. 10 28 A ina cas e inwhi ch anun de rlyin g of fen se foron e o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. 1 02 8A o ffen se s i s a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r anoff en se enum erat edin 18 U.S.C. 23 32 b( g) (5 )(B) . (ii ) Whe th er the un de rlyin g o ffen se s ar e g ro up ab le un de r § 3 D1.2 (Gro up s o f Cl os el y Rel at edCo un ts ). Gen eral ly, m ul ti pl e co un ts of 1 8 U.S.C. 1 02 8A s ho ul d ru n co nc urren tl y

with o ne an ot he r in cas es in whi ch th e un de rlyin g o ffen se s ar e g ro up ab le un de r § 3 D1.2 . (ii i) Whet he r th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng setforth in 18 U.S.C. 35 53 (a)( 2) are b et te r ach ie ve d b y im po si ng a co nc urren t o r a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e fo r m ul ti pl e co un ts of 18 U.S.C. 10 28 A. U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.2 , cm

t. n .2(B ). Here, wh il e th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ex pl ic it ly m en ti on th e sp eci fic Gui de li ne s co m

m en ta ry th atpro vi de s t he an al y si s fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r m ul ti pl e ag gr av at edfel on y co nv ic ti on s warran t co nc urren t o r co ns ecu ti ve

9se nt en ces , th atom is si on do es no t co ns ti tu te pl ai n e rro r. Fir st , Brad sh aw po in ts to

no bi nd in g p rece de ntth atrequi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o e xp li ci tl y di sc us s t he li stof no n- ex haus ti ve fact or s p res en t i n c omm en ts to U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.2 . Seco nd , th e tra ns cri ptrev eal s t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idco ns id er the na tu re an d s eri ou sn es s o f th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se s, an d i t ex pl ic it ly dis cu ss edth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. The refo re, i t cl earl y

co ns id eredtwo of t he th ree f act or s i n t he co m

m en ts to U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.2 . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err i n app lying pa rti al ly con se cu ti ve sen te nc es forth e two sep arat e § 10 28 A co nv ic ti on s. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

10