Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Minerva RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 225 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 05-41379
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Minerva RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Minerva RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41379
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Pub- lie Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Minerva Rubio pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and (b)(1)(D). She argues that the district court erroneously calculated her sentencing guideline range by applying a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(9) for the use of sophisticated means. Rubio's offense included a repetitive scheme, access and use of multiple credit and bank accounts, repetitive misrepresentations in person and telephonically to obtain goods and services, the concealment of criminal activity by accessing bank and credit accounts and misdirecting mail, and the creation, copying, and transmission of false identification. Viewed in its entirety, the scheme involved sophisticated means even if some of aspects of Rubio's offense were not sophisticated, and the district court did not clearly err. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340 (5th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.