Opinion ID: 157417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant’s role in offense

Text: Defendant pled guilty to one count of knowingly and fraudulently using another’s credit card to obtain things of value. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). The presentence report indicates that defendant obtained credit card numbers from guests staying at a hotel where she worked. Defendant, and others, then used these numbers, without the cardholders’ authorization, to purchase merchandise. Although the participants purchased merchandise in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Wichita, Kansas, they made the majority of their purchases through one particular salesperson at a single furniture store in Oklahoma City. The presentence report recommended the district court increase defendant’s offense level three levels as a manager or supervisor of the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), because defendant obtained the credit card numbers, furnished them to five or more participants in this scheme, and instructed those participants on how to use the numbers to purchase merchandise. See R. vol. 2 at 7, ¶ 28. Defendant objected to this increase, asserting that, while she did obtain the credit card numbers, she turned those numbers over to her boyfriend, who in turn -2- gave the numbers to the other participants, and instructed defendant and the others on how and where to make purchases using those numbers. Defendant also specifically objected to the presentence report’s description of her role in the Oklahoma City purchases. The district court overruled these objections, finding that defendant’s conduct does in fact warrant a supervisor or manager role in this offense. She certainly orchestrated the offenses in terms of appropriating credit card numbers from her place of employment and furnishing them to others. She exercised decision-making authority. She told them how to do it, told them where to go. Id. , vol. 3 at 5. On appeal, defendant argues that, in making this determination, the sentencing court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1), which requires that, “[f]or each matter controverted, the court must make either a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing.” We agree. A district court may not satisfy its obligation under Rule 32(c)(1) by simply adopting the presentence report as its findings. See, e.g. , United States v. Romero , 122 F.2d 1334, 1344 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1310 (1998). Where, as here, the district court “fails to comply with Rule 32, we must remand for the court to either make the necessary findings and attach them to the -3- presentence report, or enter a declaration that it did not take the controverted matters into account in sentencing the defendant.” Romero , 122 F.3d at 1344.