Opinion ID: 807896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Adjustment in Certain

Text: Circumstances.–Notwithstanding Application Note 1, or any other provision of this guideline, an adjustment under this guideline shall apply to the following . . . (B) A defendant who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her position in order to obtain, transfer, or issue unlawfully, or use without authority, any means of identification. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 Application Note 2(B). -4- The district court applied § 3B1.3 on the basis that Godsey abused the authority of her position in order to use without authority her supervisor's means of identification. Godsey argues that because the district court did not first establish whether she occupied a “position of public or private trust” under Application Note 1, it should never have reached Application Note 2(B). In response, the government contends that Application Note 2(B) may be applied independently of Application Note 1 because Application Note 2 clearly states that it applies “[n]otwithstanding Application Note 1….” Godsey’s argument requires us to interpret the guidelines. “‘We employ basic rules of statutory construction when interpreting the Guidelines.’” United States v. Davis, 668 F.3d 576, 577 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Hackman, 630 F.3d 1078, 1083 (8th Cir. 2011)). Unless an Application Note is clearly erroneous or in conflict with the Constitution, a federal statute, or the guideline itself, the note is binding on a district court. Hackman, 630 F.3d at 1083 (quoting United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 1045, 1047 (8th Cir. 2002)). Godsey does not argue that the Application Note in question suffers any such deficiency. “‘We therefore turn to the ordinary meaning of the terms to guide our review’” of the Application Note at issue. Id. (quoting United States v. Parker, 267 F.3d 839, 847 (8th Cir. 2001)). Generally, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 the government must prove (1) that the defendant was in a position of public or private trust; and (2) that he used the position to significantly facilitate the commission or concealment of the offense. United States v. Miell, 661 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 2011). We now face the question of whether Application Note 2(B) provides an independent basis for applying an adjustment under § 3B1.3. We hold that is does. The Note’s own terms sever it from other § 3B1.3 requirements. Application Note 2 states that “[n]otwithstanding Application Note 1 or any other provision of this guideline, an adjustment under this guideline shall apply to the following[.]” -5- “Notwithstanding” means “in spite of.” Notwithstanding, Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (7th ed. 1999). Application Note 2(B), therefore, applies in spite of Note 1. A failure to meet the definition of Application Note 1 does not affect whether Application Note 2(B) applies. The plain language of Application Note 2(B) thus compels the conclusion that it applies even when Application Note 1 does not. Accordingly, we find that Application Note 2(B) is an independent basis for applying an adjustment under § 3B1.3. See United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 611 (4th Cir. 2010). 2. Godsey next argues that she is not covered by the language in Application Note 2(B). She asserts that all of the example applications given in Application Note 2(B) involve identity theft that victimizes individuals outside the defendant’s place of employment. Because Godsey’s identity theft victimized only her supervisor, she argues that Application Note 2(B) does not apply to her. The government argues that the Note’s application should not be limited by its stated examples. Note 2(B) provides the following example applications: (i) An employee of a state motor vehicle department who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her position by knowingly issuing a driver's license based on false, incomplete, or misleading information; (ii) a hospital orderly who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her position by obtaining or misusing patient identification information from a patient chart; and (iii) a volunteer at a charitable organization who exceeds or abuses the authority of his or her position by obtaining or misusing identification information from a donor's file. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 Application Note 2(B). -6- The first victim mentioned in the examples is presumably the public. The second victim is a patient, and the third is a charitable donor. While none of the stated examples involve the employment relationship in Godsey's case, the express rule of Application Note 2(B) does not discuss victims. To meet the Note’s definition, a defendant need only to have “exceed[ed] or abuse[d] the authority of his or her position” in order to unlawfully use any means of identification. Id. The act of using identification is what is pertinent–not who is victimized. We are reluctant to conclude that the Sentencing Commission intended Application Note 2(B)'s examples to add an element not present in the plain language of the Note. For these reasons, we find that Application Note 2(B) is not limited by its stated examples and that Godsey’s actions fall within the field of offenses contemplated by the Note.