FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 80 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 01 90 -WSD-AJB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us KAREN CLARK, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 92 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 01 90 -WSD-AJB-8 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us REGINALD SMITH,a.k .a. Reg in al d L. Sm it h,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 17 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 01 90 -WSD-AJB-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us VIOLA HILL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Karen Cla rk , Vio laHil l, an d R eg in al d S m it h app eal th ei r se nt en ces for co ns pi racy to c omm itba nkfrau d i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 , andag gr av at ed 2id en ti ty the ft i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a) an d (b )(2 ). They argu e th atth e

di st ric t co urt erredinim

po si ng a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r so ph is ti cat edm ean s, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 )(C) . Hill als o a rg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t s he was s ub ject t o afou r-l ev el in crea se forbe in g a n o rg an iz er orlea de r, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ). Fin al ly, Cl arkarg ue s tha t h er s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . For the fol lo win g re as on s, we affi rm Hil l’s an d S m ith’s s en te nc es , andwe va cat e Cl ark ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. I. Fro m Sep te m be r 20 05 th ro ug h M ay

20 08 , Hil l ra n ach eck -cas hi ng sch em e. Sm ith was anem

pl oyee of th e Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e (“ USPS” ), an d Hi ll pa idhi m $2 50 pe r bo x t o s te al bo xe s o f ch eck s fr om th e Atl an taBu lkMai l Ce nt er. Hil l p ai d a no th er i nd iv idua l t o o bt ai n a cco un t i de nt ifi ers , su chas d at es of b irt h an d s oc ia l s ecu rit y

nu m be rs , to m at chth e id en ti ti es onth e st ol ench eck s. Hil l an d he r hu sb an d t he n p ai d adi ffer en t p ers on $1 00 pe r do cu m en t t o c reat e fraudul en t id en ti fic at io n d oc um en ts , in cl ud in g driv ers li cen se s. Th es e fraudul en t d oc um en ts m at ch edth e st ol enin fo rm at io n, b utus edth e Hil ls ’ ph ot os an d t he ph ot os of t he ir co -d efen da nt s. The Hil ls di st rib ut edth e st ol ench eck s an d fa ke id en ti fic at io ns to at l eas t 3fiv e ch eckrun ne rs , in cl ud in g d efen da ntCla rk . Then , Hil l an d t he ot he r ch eck

cas he rs tra ve le d t o c as in os inMi ss is si pp i an d Lo ui si an a to cas h the frau du le nt ch eck s, wh ere t he y

co ul d c as h t he m

forlar ge r am ou nt s. Th e co ns pi rat or s oc cas io na ll y

cas he d the ch eck s i n C ol or ad o a ndne go ti at edso m e o f th e st ol en ch eck s i n re ta il st or es . Som et im es Hil l re qu es te d p ho ne card s o r ho us eh ol d i te m s as pa ym en t fr om

th e ch eckrun ne rs forpro vi di ng th em with t he st ol ench eck s. Th e Hil ls to okha lf o f th e m on ey th atth e ch eckcas he rs rece iv ed . This sch em e vi ct im iz ed20 3 a cco un t h ol de rs , fora to ta l l os s amoun t o f $6 22 ,90 0.2 4. II. A. So ph is ti cat edMea ns W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g t ha t a d efen da ntus ed

“ so ph is ti cat edm ean s” forcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro be rt so n , 49 3 F .3d13 22 , 13 29 –3 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . The Gu id el in es st at e th attwo lev el s ar e ad de d t o a de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el if the off en se in vo lv edso ph is ti cat edm ean s. U.S.S.G § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 )(c) . “ So ph is ti cat edm ean s” refe rs to “ es pe ci al ly com pl ex or es pe ci al ly intric at e o ffen se co nduc t p ert ai ni ng to th e ex ecu ti on or c on ceal m en t o f anoff en se ,” an d m ay

in cl ud e co nduc t l ik e h id in g a ss et s o r tr an sa ct io ns “ th ro ug h th e u se of f

ic ti ti ou s en ti ti es , cor

po rat e sh el ls , or o ffs ho re fi na nc ia l ac co un ts .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n .8(B ). And“ [t]he re i s n o re qu ire m en t tha t ea chof a 4de fen da nt ’s in di vi du al act io ns be so ph is ti cat edinord er t o i m po se th e en ha nc em en t. Rat he r, itis su ffi ci en t i f th e to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gh er tl er , 60 5 F .3d12 56 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). All th ree d efen da nt s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t th ey us edso ph is ti cat edm ean s. Cl arkan d S m it h arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d a n i m

pr op er s ta nd ardbe cau se th e co urt fo un d tha t the ch eck -cas hi ng sc he m e in vo lv ed“pr act ic al so ph is ti cat io n.” They also arg ue th atth e sc he m e d id no t i nv ol ve so ph is ti cat edm ean s b ecau se th e g ro up di d n otres earc h the ir v ic ti m s’ li ve s, ex te ndth ei r li ne s o f cre di t, o r ch an ge th ei r bi ll in g a dd res se s. Sm it h arg ue s th atth ere was no th in g e sp eci al ly com pl ex or i nt ric at e ab ou t h is co nduc t. He u rg es us to fol lo w th e ap pr oa chad op te d b y othe r ci rcu it s, i n wh ic h asch em e in vo lv es

“ so ph is ti cat edm ean s” when th e sc he m e is di st in gu is habl e fro m rou ti ne or g ard en va rie ty offen se s. Cl arkan d Hi ll arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs were wi th ou t s up po rt i n t he reco rdbe cau se th e co ns pi rat or s’ rol es were n ot co m pa rtmenta li zed , bec au se th ere i s n ot hi ng esp eci al ly com pl ex or i nt ric at e ab ou t cas hi ng st ol ench eck s atcas in os , andbe cau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t the co ns pi rat or s ca sh edch eck s atcas in os forth e p ur po se of e va di ng de te ct io n. The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t he de fen dant s’ che ck cas hi ng sch em e in vo lv edso ph is ti cat edm ean s o f ex ecu ti on an d c on ceal m en t. The 5sc he m e to oky ears of p la nn in g, co or di na ti on , andeffo rts of t he m an y in di vi du al s in vo lv edinth e cri m in al op erat io n. Th e co ns pi rat or s o bt ai ne d i nf orm at io n abo ut th e acc ou ntho ld ers , creat edan d u se d fr au du le ntid en ti fic at io n d oc um en ts , cas he d th e ch eck s atcas in os , andtra ve le d a cro ss st at e li ne s. Th e to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was co m pl ex inex ecu ti on , sat is fy in g U.S.S.G § 2B 1.1 (b )(9 )(c) . Se e Ghe rt le r , 60 5 F.3 d a t 1 26 7. Mo reo ve r, th es e fac ts in di cat e a s op hi st ic at edm ean s o f co nc eal in g th e o ffen se fro m

au th or it ie s. The di stric t co urt d idno t ap pl y anim pr op er d efi ni ti on of s op hi st ic at ed m ean s, n ordi d i t cr eat e a n ew le ga l s ta nd ard , by reco gn iz in g t he “pr act ic al so ph is ti cat io n” of t hi s s ch em e. The s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s d o n otrequi re te ch no lo gi cal or i nt el le ctua l s op hi st ic at io n. No r do th ey li m itth e en ha nc em en t t o sc he m es in vo lv in g fi ct it io us en ti ti es , cor po rat e sh el ls , andoff

sh or e acc ou nt s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C

amp be ll , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 15 –1 6 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (st at in g t ha t

“ th e fac t tha t [t he ap pe ll an t] di d n otus e o ffs ho re b an k a cco un ts or t ran sa ct io ns th ro ug h fi ct it io us bu si ne ss en ti tl es [wa]s un av ai li ng ”). The gu id el in es als o d o n ot requi re tha t the de fen da nt s re se arch th ei r vi ct im s’ li ve s, ex te ndth ei r li ne s o f cred it , or c ha ng e th ei r bi ll in g a dd res se s fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o fi ndth atanoff en se in vo lv edso ph is ti cat edm ean s. Inli gh t o f th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f th e sc he m e, we ha ve no de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d wh enit 6en ha nc edth e d efen da nt s’ sen te nc es forso ph is ti cat edm ean s. We acco rd in gl y

affi rm th e en ha nc em en t, an d S mit h’s fi na l s en te nc e. B. Org an iz er o r Lead er A def en da nt ’s rol e as anorg an iz er o r le ad er i s a f actua l fi nd in g t ha t we rev ie w forcle ar erro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. J imen ez , 22 4 F .3d12 43 , 12 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . W e wil l n otfin d c le ar err orun le ss “ ‘w e are lef t wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m m it te d.’” Uni te d Sta tes v. Cr aw fo rd , 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 77 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Gla ss ro th v. Moo re , 33 5 F.3 d 1 28 2, 1 29 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ). To as se ss whet he r a d efen da ntwas a n “ or gani zer o r le ad er o f a cri m in al act iv ity ,” we co ns id er s ev eral fact or s, i nc lu di ng :

(1 ) th e ex erci se of de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y , (2 ) th e na tu re of parti ci pa ti o n in th e co m mis si on of th e of

fen se , (3 ) th e recrui tm en t of acco m

pl ic es , (4 ) th e cl ai m ed rig ht to a la rg er sh are of th e fru it s of th e cri me, (5 ) th e de gr ee of pa rti ci pa ti on in pl anni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se , (6 ) th e na tu re and sc op e o f th e il le ga l ac ti vi ty, an d (7 ) th e de gr ee of co nt ro l an d aut ho rit y

ex erci se d o ve r ot he rs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu

pt a , 46 3 F .3d11 82 , 11 98 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ti ng U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 cmt. n .4). No t al l o f th es e co ns id erat io ns ne edto be pre se nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Rami re z , 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 56 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er curia m). “ ‘Secti on 3B 1.1 requi res th e ex erci se of s om e au th or it y inth e o rg an iz at io n, the ex ert io n o f so m e 7de gr ee o f co nt ro l, i nf lu en ce, o r le ad ers hi p.’” Uni te d Sta tes v. Y at es , 99 0 F .2d 11 79 , 11 82 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 94 4 F.2 d 1 37 7, 1 38 5 (7 th Cir . 19 91 )). Altho ug h Hi ll recr

ui te d J en ni ng s i nt o t he co ns pi racy, obt ai ne d t he ch eck s, an d, al on g wi th he r hu sb an d, re cei ve d alar ge r sh are o f th e cri m e p ro ceed s tha n t he ot he r co ns pi rat or s, s he arg ue s t ha t a f ou r-l ev el in crea se was n otwarran te d b ecau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t s he ex erci se d c on tro l o ve r th e o th er d efen da nt s o r di rect edth ei r act iv ity . Hill als o a rg ue s tha t s he sh ou ldno t b e co ns id eredth e le ad er o r or ga ni zer o f th is cri m in al en te rp ris e b ecau se he r hu sb an d’s fa m il y ha d a hi st ory of c omm it ti ng si m il ar cr im es be fo re the y ev er m ethe r. The di stric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Hi ll was aorg an iz er o r le ad er, rat he r th an m erel y a m an ag er o r supe rv is or , was n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Ra th er, i t i s s up po rte d by Hill ’s ownadm is si on s an d the un di sp ut edfact s i n t he reco rd . Furt he r, th e p as t cri m in al hi st ory

of Hi ll ’s co- co ns pi rat or s i s i rrel ev an t t o a n a ss es sm en t o f he r ro le in th is parti cu la r of

fen se , as t he fact or s l oo k o nl y at t he de fen da nt ’s con du ctinan d co nt ro l o ve r a g iv enen te rp ris e. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1 cmt. n .4. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atHil l was eli gi bl e fo r a fo ur -le ve l i nc reas e as anorg an iz er o r le ad er o f th e sc he m e, an d we a ffi rm he r se nt en ce. C. Pro cedur al Reas on ab le ne ss 8On ap pe al , th e p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). W e rev ie w sen te nc es un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 ). Cla rkarg ue s t ha t h er s en te nc e o n c ou nton e was pro cedur al ly un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto rul e o n t he go ve rn m en t’s § 5K1 .1 m ot io n fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re, ex pl ai n t he ex te ntof t he de pa rtu re i t g ran te d, o r st at e wha t b as is itco ns id eredinde pa rti ng do wnwar d. We agre e. Pro cedur al erro rs in cl ud e “ fai li ng to cal cu la te (or im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edoncle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Id . The d is tri ctco urt m us t “ ad equa te ly ex pl ai n t he ch os ensen te nc e to all ow fo r m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w andto pr om ot e th e p erce pt io n o f fai r se nt en ci ng .” Id . at 5 0, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7. Onc e th e g ov ern m en t h as m ad e a m ot io n fo r do wnwar d d ep artur e p ur su an t to U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 , th e g ov ern m en t h as no co nt ro l o ve r whe th er the di st ric t co urt wil l d ep artfro m

th e g ui de li ne s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 91 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Butinde te rm in in g t he ex te ntof a§ 5 K1.1 de pa rtu re, the di st ric t 9co urt m

us t co ns id er the fiv e n on -ex cl us iv e § 5K1 .1 fa ct or s: “ (1 ) th e u se fu ln es s o f th e d efen da nt ’s ass is ta nc e; (2) th e trut hf ul ne ss an d c om

pl et en es s o f th e de fen da nt ’s in fo rm at io n a ndtes ti m on y ; (3 ) th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f th e de fen da nt ’s ass is ta nc e; (4) an y in jury suff eredor r is k o f in

jury or da ng er t o t he de fen da ntan d h is fam il y

as ares ul t o f hi s as si st an ce; an d (5 ) th e ti m el in es s o f th e as si st an ce.” Se e id . at 1 09 2; U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 (a)( 1) –( 5) . Evenwher e th e d is tri ct co urt h as erre d, i t i s unn eces sa ry to rem an d i f th e § 5K1 .1 p ro cedur al erro r di d n ot affe ctth e u lt im at e se nt en ce i m po se d. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3dat 1 09 2. Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r be cau se itfai le d t o ex pl ai n a de qu at el y

th e ex te ntof t he § 5 K1.1 de pa rtu re. Cl arkreque st eda th ree- le ve l d ep artur e, whi chwou ldha ve im pl ic at eda gu id el in e ran ge of 5 1 t o 6 3 m on th s. Th e g ov ern m en t re qu es te d atwo -le ve l d ep artur e, whi chwou ldha ve m ad e Cl ark ’s gu id el in e ran ge 57 to 71 m on th s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d, “ All rig ht . W el l, I wi ll gra ntth e [§ 5K1 .1] m ot io n, b utas I co ns id er a re as on ab le sen te nc e I wil l d et erm in e wha t i s t he pro pe r reduc ti on to m ak e.” The co urt, h owe ve r, fai le d to pro vi de an y

furth er ex pl an at io n o f th e ex te ntof t he de pa rtu re, o r an y an al y si s o f th e fi ve m an da to ry

fact or s i n § 5K1 .1(a ). The d is tri ctco urt, wi th ou t an y refe ren ce to th e d ep artur e o r th e fi na l g ui de li ne ran ge , im po se d asen te nc e o f 60 -m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n c ou nt1, wh ic h was withi n the gu id el in e ran ge reque st edby bot h 10pa rti es . Wha t, i f an y , reduc ti on itga ve for th e § 5K1 .1 m ot io n re m ai ns un cl ear. W e h av e n o i de a whe th er the di st ric t co urt co ns id eredim pe rm is si bl e fac to rs in im po si ng th e d own wardde pa rtu re, an d i t i s i m po ss ib le to kn ow wh ethe r th is pr oc edur al erro r affe ct edth e u lt im at e se nt en ce i m po se d. Se e Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3dat 10 92 (fi nd in g t ha t the § 5 K1.1 pro cedur al erro r di d n otrequi re re m an d b ecau se th e di st ric t co urt “ cl earl y

in di cat edth atitwou ldha ve im po se d t he same sen te nc e ev en if i ts § 5 K1.1 do wnwar d d ep artur e was erro ne ou s” ). Thu s, b as edon th e fac ts of th is cas e, we fi ndth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r. 1 W e aff irm with re sp ectto Sm it h a ndHil l, an d we v acat e an d re m an d fo r Cl ark ’s res en te nc in g, n ot in g t ha t the di stric t co urt s ho ul d a rti cu la te th e ex te ntof it s d ep artur e und er § 5.K1 .1. AFFIRMED in pa rt; VACATED a nd REMANDED i n pa rt.

Be causethe Clark’s se ntence was not proc edura lly sound, we do not addr ess whethe r 1 the sentenc e imposed wa s substantively rea sonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007) ( explaining how if the se ntence is procedur ally rea sonable, this Court then eva luates the “ substantive rea sonablene ss” of the se ntence imposed). 11