Opinion ID: 2796506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DeMarco’s Sentence

Text: DeMarco challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court improperly applied Guidelines enhancements for abuse of a position of trust, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, and the use of sophisticated means, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Ellis, 440 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Bothun, 424 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Baldwin, 414 F.3d 791, 798 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing sentencing review post-Booker).
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.3 authorizes a two-point sentencing enhancement when a defendant “abused a position of public or private trust … in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. We employ a two-part test to determine whether the abuse of trust enhancement is appropriate: (1) whether the defendant occupied a position of trust, and (2) whether the defendant’s abuse of that position of trust facilitated his commission or concealment of the crime. United No. 14-1526 15 States v. Cruz, 317 F.3d 763, 766 (7th Cir. 2003). In determining whether the defendant occupied a position of trust, we analyze the situation from the perspective of the victim. United States v. Hathcoat, 30 F.3d 913, 919 (7th Cir. 1994). A formal position of trust is not necessary under § 3B1.3, United States v. Mabrook, 301 F.3d 503, 510 (7th Cir. 2002), rather, courts should look beyond labels and categories that characterize the relationship and focus on the nature of the defendant’s relationship to the victim and the level of responsibility he was given. Id. Under the facts given here, the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.3. DeMarco admitted that he befriended and gained the trust of an elderly bank customer. He told Suarez that he was “in charge of a lot of very wealthy people’s accounts” and that he could help Suarez sell his property. Suarez testified that he believed that DeMarco would be able to use his position at Chase Bank to help him sell his property. Suarez also testified that DeMarco convinced him that a HELOC was necessary to complete the sale of his property and that he did not question DeMarco regarding the HELOC or distribution of the HELOC proceeds because he had “confidence in him [DeMarco].” Moreover, Suarez allowed DeMarco to control the HELOC closing and signed the HELOC agreement at DeMarco’s direction, even though he did not fully understand the agreement at the time of signing. These facts are more than sufficient to show that DeMarco used his position at Chase Bank in order to convince Suarez that he had a buyer for the property, persuade him that a HELOC was necessary to consummate the sale, and control the events that took place at the HELOC closing. DeMarco himself admitted that Suarez trusted him to “do the right 16 No. 14-1526 thing” in this financial transaction and that he abused this trust. Accordingly, the district court did not err in enhancing DeMarco’s sentence for abuse of a position of trust.
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) provides for a two-level sentencing enhancement if the offense involved sophisticated means. Sophisticated means is defined as “means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.9(B). Application of the enhancement is proper “when the conduct shows a greater level of planning or concealment than the typical fraud of its kind.” United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 856, 871 (7th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Kontny, 238 F.3d 815, 821 (7th Cir. 2001) (concluding that “sophisticated,” as used in an analogous adjustment for tax frauds under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1, refers to efforts “that go beyond” but “not necessarily far beyond” the typical case). DeMarco contends that his conduct was an isolated instance of fraud which did not entail a greater level of planning or concealment than the garden-variety wire fraud. We disagree. Over the course of several months, DeMarco befriended an elderly customer at the bank where he was a branch manager and an assistant vice president. Shortly after he discovered that Suarez owned a property worth upwards of $1.8 million, DeMarco caused Suarez to delist his property with Coldwell Banker so as to ensure it was not sold before the completion of his scheme. DeMarco convinced Suarez to obtain a HELOC on the property, and, using his HELOC expertise, submitted No. 14-1526 17 multiple HELOC applications in Suarez’s name to multiple banks. DeMarco made sure to attend the HELOC closing in order to misrepresent his work address as that of the borrower on the HELOC agreement. He also fraudulently opened a joint checking account in his and Suarez’s name, which listed his home address, rather than Suarez’s, as the address of record. DeMarco took these steps to facilitate his access to the HELOC funds and to ensure that he, rather than Suarez, received any notifications regarding the HELOC in order to postpone detection. See United States v. Wayland, 549 F.3d 526, 527 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding enhancement proper, in part, because the defendant fraudulently registered both a post office box and joint checking account in his and a fictitious in-home assistant’s names to facilitate receipt of fraudulently acquired Medicare funds); United Stated v. Robinson, 538 F.3d 605, 607–08 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding enhancement proper where defendant included a false telephone number on checks that, if dialed, allowed the defendant to personally misrepresent the legitimacy of the check to the caller); United States v. Maddox, 551 Fed. Appx. 275, 276 (7th Cir. 2014) (not selected for publication) (holding enhancement proper where the defendant changed the mailing address on a victim’s personal bank account “so that the bank statements would be sent to post office boxes rather than the victim, postponing detection”). The foregoing scheme is not merely an isolated instance of fraud, as DeMarco claims. Rather, given the myriad of steps involved, including DeMarco’s manipulation of the HELOC agreement and joint account, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in enhancing DeMarco’s sentence for the use of sophisticated means. 18 No. 14-1526