Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180517_0002020.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:32:39+00:00

Document:
The Court has received the revised presentence investigation report (RPSR) in this case. The defendant has filed a motion for variance (filing 31). The defendant has also filed an objection (filing 41) to the revised presentence investigation report.
2. The defendant has objected to the RSPR, arguing that three enhancements--the sophisticated means, the abuse of private or public trust, and the possession of five or more means of identification--should not be applied to his case. Filing 41 at 1.
First, the defendant objects to the two-level enhancement for "sophisticated means" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Filing 41. The facts set forth in the RPSR, briefly summarized, are that the defendant was a United States Postal Service employee who submitted change of address requests to the Postal Service, without authorization, on behalf of at least thirteen individuals. RPSR at 6, 12. Once the addresses were changed, the defendant would request that credit cards be sent to these "new" addresses from which the defendant would retrieve the credit cards (which were in the victims' names), and then use those credit cards. RPSR at 12.
The RPSR suggests that the defendant's conduct was sophisticated and thus, the "sophisticated means" enhancement applies. In determining whether the defendant's conduct was sophisticated, the Court will consider whether the underlying offense involved "especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense." United States v. Bolt, 782 F.3d 388, 391 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 9(B)); United States v. Bistrup, 449 F.3d 873, 882 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Anderson, 349 F.3d 568, 570 (8th Cir. 2004). Even if any single step is not complicated, repetitive and coordinated conduct can amount to a sophisticated scheme. United States v. Norwood, 774 F.3d 476, 479 (8th Cir. 2014); see United States v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825, 835 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Jenkins, 578 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2009); Bistrup, 449 F.3d at 882. Whether a scheme is sophisticated must be viewed in light of the fraudulent conduct and differentiated, by assessing the intricacy or planning of the conduct, from similar offenses conducted by different defendants. United States v. Hance, 501 F.3d 900, 909 (8th Cir. 2007). To that end, "sophisticated means" need not be highly sophisticated, and the enhancement may be proper when the offense conduct, viewed as a whole, was notably more intricate than that of the garden variety offense. Norwood, 774 F.3d at 480; Hance, 501 F.3d at 909.

References: § 2
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.