Opinion ID: 2775112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial, convictions, and sentencing

Text: During the two-day jury trial, Detective Wagenmann testified for the government as to the above-described evidence found in the Impala during the 17 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 18 of 44 inventory search. Detective Wagenmann also testified about Handy’s statements disclaiming ownership or knowledge of many of the items. For example, Detective Wagenmann explained that Handy generally claimed ownership of “anything innocuous or non-incriminating” but denied knowledge of any “fraudrelated item” that contained someone else’s name. Willie Donnell, Handy’s great aunt, testified that Handy was living with her as of April 5, 2012. However, Donnell never gave Handy permission to have copies of her Florida identification card, letters to her from Wells Fargo, or credit cards in her name, and never asked Handy to help her clear up an issue with her bank. When shown the credit cards in her name found in the Impala, Donnell testified that she had never before seen, or applied for, the cards.8 Additionally, evidence was introduced concerning 17 of the 68 individuals who were listed, along with their dates of birth and social security numbers, in one of the notebooks found in Handy’s backpack. The evidence established that, although the 17 individuals all were incarcerated throughout 2011 and did not earn any wages that year, 2011 federal income tax returns for all 17 individuals were filed claiming refunds of several thousand dollars each. The returns also represented that the individuals had earned wages in 2011. All 17 returns had been 8 Handy did not object to this testimony by Donnell. Additionally, during the charge conference, when the district court proposed omitting a Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) limiting instruction as not applicable, Handy stated that she had no objection. 18 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 19 of 44 filed electronically, and several of the 17 returns were filed on the same day. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) was reviewing or questioning at least one of the returns, which can occur when the withholding is disproportionate to the stated income. 9 The returns included that of Crystal Lambert, who testified that she was incarcerated in Hernando Prison from 2008 to 2012. Although a 2011 tax return for Lambert was filed claiming a refund of $9,872, Lambert testified that she did not receive any wages from her prison job in 2011; she neither filed a tax return for 2011 nor authorized anyone to file a return on her behalf; she did not receive a tax refund for 2011 from the IRS; and she did not recognize the address listed on the return filed under her name. Moreover, Lambert did not recognize Handy and did not know anyone with Handy’s name.
At the close of the government’s case, Handy’s counsel moved orally for judgment of acquittal, stating that the government had “failed to prove a prima facie case that [Handy] was in possession of these Social Security numbers as well as committed the crimes of aggravated identity theft.” Handy declined to offer further argument on the motion, and the district court denied the motion. The jury found Handy guilty of all charges in the indictment. 9 Testimony established that the IRS uses the social security number provided with an income tax return to verify the identity of the taxpayer. 19 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 20 of 44
The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) recommended a base offense level of six for Count One, the count of possessing 15 or more access devices, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(2). The PSI added to that base offense level: (1) a six-level increase because the loss amount was between $30,000 and $70,000, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D); and (2) a four-level increase because the offense involved more than 50 but fewer than 250 victims, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). As to the number of victims, the PSI noted that the inventory search of the Impala revealed “a total of 73 Social Security numbers of relatives, incarcerated or formerly incarcerated persons which defendant had in her possession. The investigation continues as to the numerous ways the identifiers were fraudulently used in various schemes. The government has been unable to pinpoint the defendant’s exact involvement in these schemes.” Handy’s total adjusted offense level was 16. Based on this total offense level and criminal history category of I, Handy’s advisory guidelines range for Count One was 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. Additionally, Counts Two through Six, the aggravated identity theft counts, each carried a statutory two-year term of imprisonment, to run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2). 20 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 21 of 44 The PSI further recommended a guidelines fine range of $5,000 to $50,000, based on an offense level of 16, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3), and noted that the statutory maximum fine was $250,000, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3). As to whether a fine should be assessed, the PSI concluded that Handy had provided insufficient information for the probation officer to make such a recommendation. In particular, Handy had refused to sign any financial release forms and had provided only limited financial information. Through an independent investigation, the probation officer was able to verify the following about Handy’s financial situation: (1) she had two Wells Fargo accounts, each with a $100 balance; (2) she owned a 2002 Cadillac Escalade with an estimated value of between $6,340 and $10,070; (3) she had $2,000 in credit card debt; and (4) she had no dependents. However, the probation officer was unable to verify the following financial information reported by Handy: (1) since 2009, she owned a business as a producer, rap artist, singer, and event promoter, and earned between $70,000 and $100,000 annually; (2) from 2003 to 2006, she worked with a music group, earning between $40,000 and $150,000 annually; and (3) she had no business assets. Handy filed no objections to the PSI. At the sentencing hearing, after confirming that the parties had no objections to the PSI, the district court adopted the factual statements and guideline 21 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 22 of 44 calculations contained in the PSI. Before imposing a sentence, the district court questioned Handy about her lack of cooperation in providing the probation officer with financial information. Handy’s counsel stated that he had not properly advised Handy that the probation officer would be visiting her in jail to question her concerning her financial situation and that she needed to cooperate and be candid and forthcoming. Moreover, defense counsel represented, Handy would more than likely be declared indigent for purposes of her appeal and did not “have any funds in an offshore account or anything like that.” Handy addressed the district court and stated that she was “hesitant to cooperate” with the probation officer or sign a financial release form because she “didn’t know what it was or who [the probation officer] really was,” as her attorney had not advised her that the probation officer would be visiting the jail. She also asked the district court for leniency in her sentence, repeatedly professing her innocence and denying that she had committed any crimes. The district court sentenced Handy to a total 51-month sentence of imprisonment, consisting of 27 months on Count One, followed by concurrent sentences of 24 months on Counts Two through Six. In imposing the sentence, the district court stated that it had considered the advisory guidelines range and all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, but it specifically discussed the nature of the 22 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 23 of 44 offenses, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offenses and afford adequate deterrence. As to these factors, the district court noted the “real identity fraud/identity theft problem here in the Southern District of Florida”; the years it takes for victims to “clear up” the issues caused by identify theft; and Handy’s continued insistence that she was innocent despite overwhelming evidence presented at trial of her guilt. The district court additionally noted that it had considered imposing additional consecutive terms of imprisonment for Counts Two through Six but decided against it because “51 months is enough but not more than required to accomplish the purposes that Section 3553(a) wants for courts to try to accomplish with a sentence.” The district court also imposed a $7,000 fine, stating: I know that she is sitting here right now and saying that she didn’t know that the probation officer was coming. But I expressly explained this to Ms. Handy after the verdict came back with the jury, and I asked her if she would cooperate and be truthful, and she said that she would, and she did not. So, again, I don’t think that that should inure to her benefit. You know, the [PSI], I guess, maybe some might consider that because it doesn’t have a finding with respect to how much money she has available to her, that the inference should be drawn to her benefit. But I disagree. I don’t think she should benefit from failing to cooperate, especially when she was earning $70,000 to $100,000 in the years before this occurred. 23 Case: 13-13232 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 24 of 44 And, so, I am going to impose a fine and I’m going to impose a fine of ten percent of what she had been earning in the years before in one year, which would be $7,000.10 Following the imposition of sentence, Handy herself summarily objected, stating her belief that that “the book [was] being thrown at [her] . . . because . . . [she] didn’t speak to or [she] declined to sign documents from a probation officer.” The district court explained that “the sentence is not imposed because you did not speak with the probation officer. That’s why the $7,000 fine is imposed, because I have no way of ascertaining what your financial means are and I’m not going to allow you to work that to your benefit. The sentence is imposed [on] behalf of the harm that you inflicted on the victims by engaging in this crime . . . .” The district court inquired whether any of the parties had any legal objections, and defense counsel and the government responded in the negative. Handy timely appealed.