Opinion ID: 151346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal Justice Sentence Enhancement

Text: “We review the district court’s application and interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007). The government must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary to support a sentence enhancement. Id. at 1280-81. The Guidelines provide that two criminal-history points should be added “if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). The Commentary to this provision explains that it applies when the defendant commits “any part of the instant offense (i.e. any relevant conduct) while under any criminal justice sentence.” Relevant conduct includes all acts and omissions “that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” 12 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). The government correctly asserts that the two-point criminal justice sentence enhancement did not change Jackson’s criminal history category. See Government Brief at 14-15. The enhancement moved Jackson’s total criminal-history points from seven to nine; in either case, his criminal history category is IV. See U.S.S.G. Ch.5, Pt. A (table). In sentencing Jackson, the district court did not indicate that it considered the fact that he committed the offense conduct while under a criminal justice sentence. Therefore, even if the two points were added in error, such error would be harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (“Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”) The district court did not clearly err in finding that conduct relevant to the offense took place while Jackson was under a sentence of probation for forgery. The government established this fact by preponderance of the evidence. In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that Capital City Bank accounts under the names “Derek B. Jackson,” “Michael Terrell Jackson,” and “Monique Danielle Dennis” were used to further a conspiracy to defraud the government. See R1-150 at 5. The government presented testimony showing that, in 2008, “Derrick Jackson,” “Michael Terrell Jackson,” and “Monique Dennis,” opened accounts with Capital 13 City Bank and that refund anticipation loans were deposited into those accounts. R5 at 54. It was established and not disputed that Jackson operated his tax scheme by directing people to open bank accounts to which he would send fraudulently obtained refunds. See R1-150 at 5, 7. Because the conduct took place in 2008, during Jackson’s probation, and was part of the same course of conduct or common scheme as the offense of conviction, it amounted to relevant conduct under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court’s addition of two criminal history points was appropriate.