Opinion ID: 2791326
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Broker-Dealer and Special

Text: Skills Enhancements Tamman contends that the dual application of the BrokerDealer enhancement and the Special Skills enhancement was improper and barred by the Sentencing Guidelines. In support, Tamman cites the Sentencing Guideline Application Note to § 2B1.1(b)(18)(A), which states, “[i]f subsection (b)(18) applies, do not apply § 3B1.3.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.14(C) (2012) (2014 version at cmt. n.15(C)). UNITED STATES V. TAMMAN 9 As this court has long acknowledged, the Sentencing Guidelines recognize the problems inherent in double counting and, in an effort to avoid increasing a defendant’s sentence for a harm that has already been fully taken into account, expressly prohibit the dual application of Sentencing Guidelines that account for the same harm. United States v. Smith, 719 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Holt, 510 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2007)). “However, ‘when each invocation of the behavior serves a unique purpose under the Guidelines,’ we conclude that the Commission ‘authorized and intended’ the cumulative application of both provisions.” Id. (quoting Holt, 510 F.3d at 1011). In 2003, the Sentencing Commission amended the Broker-Dealer enhancement to cover registered brokers and dealers, associated persons of a broker or dealer, investment advisers, and associated persons of an investment adviser. U.S.S.G. app. C, vol. II, at 367 (amend. 653) (2014). The rationale accompanying the amendment explains: The Commission concluded that a four level enhancement appropriately reflects the culpability of offenders who occupy such positions and who are subject to heightened fiduciary duties imposed by securities law or commodities law similar to duties imposed on officers and directors of publicly traded corporations. Accordingly, the court is not required to determine specifically whether the defendant abused a position of trust in order for the enhancement to apply, and a corresponding application note provides that, 10 UNITED STATES V. TAMMAN in cases in which the new, four level enhancement applies, the existing two level enhancement for abuse of position of trust at §3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill) shall not apply. Id. As the Commentary makes clear, the prohibition on the dual application of the Broker-Dealer and Special Skill enhancements reflects the Commission’s view that the Broker-Dealer enhancement already accounts for the BrokerDealer’s role and that application of both enhancements would amount to double counting. However, we hold that this rationale does not apply in cases like the one at hand, where the Broker-Dealer enhancement reflects the behavior of the principal and the Special Skill enhancement reflects separate and distinct behavior of the defendant-accessory. In that situation, application of both special offense characteristics is not double counting; it reflects different conduct committed by two different parties. We therefore affirm the district court’s application of both enhancements in this case.