Opinion ID: 721091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessment for more than minimal planning

Text: 51 On cross-appeal, the government contends that the district court's finding that defendants had not engaged in more than minimal planning was clearly erroneous. More than minimal planning results in a two-level enhancement in crimes of fraud. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2). The term is clearly defined in the guidelines: 52 More than minimal planning means more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form. More than minimal planning also exists if significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense.... More than minimal planning is deemed present in any case involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance was purely opportune. Consequently, this adjustment will apply especially frequently in property offenses. 53 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 Application Note 1(f). Citing this comment, appellate courts have reversed trial court findings of no more than minimal planning as clearly erroneous where fraudulent acts occurred repeatedly over an extended period of time. See United States v. Monaco, 23 F.3d 793, 796-98 (3rd Cir.1994); United States v. Ivery, 999 F.2d 1043, 1046 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Rust, 976 F.2d 55, 57 (1st Cir.1992). 54 More than minimal planning enhancements are appropriate where defendants create phony business entities to perpetrate their fraud, see Ivery, 999 F.2d at 1046, where false business documents are created and uttered, see United States v. Donine, 985 F.2d 463, 467 (9th Cir.1993), where sophisticated financial arrangements are used, see United States v. Ford, 989 F.2d 347, 351 (9th Cir.1993), and where defendants enlist accomplices. See United States v. Woody, 55 F.3d 1257, 1274 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 234 (1995). 55 Here, the evidence demonstrates that Kevin Brewer created a fictitious business entity in 1986 by way of a bogus partnership agreement and enlisted as accomplices his sons, wife, and two employees. Together, Jo Ann and Kevin Brewer annually submitted false documents to the ASCS, used lease agreements to funnel back fraudulently-acquired funds, and falsified checks in furtherance of their fraud (and also to conceal it). This conduct persisted over a period of years. 56 The district court clearly erred in not finding more than minimal planning. 57