Opinion ID: 2723943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: offord’s role

Text: Here, in Offord’s sentencing, the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level role increase pursuant to § 3B1.1(c). According to undisputed facts in his presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Offord and two codefendants, Terricka Randolph and Gina Josaphat, were involved in a scheme to use counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes (“FRNs”) to purchase items at Target stores, which they then would return to different Target stores for genuine U.S. currency. During the investigation, codefendant Josaphat gave a sworn statement that Offord recruited her into the counterfeiting scheme, gave her counterfeit FRNs, and instructed her on how to use them at Target stores to obtain U.S. currency. Codefendant Josaphat also said that, when she bought $1,000 worth of Target items, Defendant Offord gave her $300 in genuine currency as payment. 4 Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 5 of 7 At the sentencing hearing, United States Secret Service Agent Earl Kornickey testified that, as part of an earlier counterfeiting investigation of Defendant Offord, he interviewed Randolph, and she admitted that Offord recruited her into that counterfeiting scheme because he believed that women were less likely to get caught. Randolph also told Agent Kornickey that Offord taught her how to commit the counterfeiting scheme. Agent Kornickey confirmed that, when he interviewed Josaphat as part of the instant investigation, she also said that Offord recruited her to participate in a counterfeiting scheme and explained the scheme to her. Given the indicia of reliability, the district court properly relied upon Agent Kornickey’s hearsay testimony about codefendants Randolph’s and Josaphat’s statements. See United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005). Specifically, Randolph’s and Josaphat’s statements to Agent Kornickey were consistent with each other and with the undisputed facts in the PSI. Further, Agent Kornickey was subject to cross-examination at the sentencing hearing. Although at sentencing Offord’s counsel argued that Randolph and Josaphat were the ones who first approached Offord about the counterfeiting scheme, Offord presented no evidence to support this claim. An attorney’s factual assertions, alone, do not constitute evidence upon which a sentencing court can rely. See United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013). 5 Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 6 of 7 Accordingly, the district court did not commit clear error when it credited Agent Kornickey’s unrebutted testimony. In short, the government’s unrebutted evidence showed that Defendant Offord: (1) approached his codefendants and invited them to become involved in a counterfeiting scheme; (2) provided them with the counterfeit obligations and taught them how to perform the scheme; and (3) kept the lion’s share of the proceeds for himself after his codefendants completed the purchases and returns at Target stores. Further, Defendant Offord’s recruitment and instruction demonstrated the necessary degree of control, influence, or decision-making authority over Randolph and Josaphat necessary to qualify for an aggravating-role increase pursuant to § 3B1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1231-32 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming application of a four-level role increase where the defendant, among other things, recruited another participant and gave instructions on how to commit the drug-smuggling crime); United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the application of a fourlevel role increase where the defendant recruited and instructed others in an immigration-fraud conspiracy); United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming application of a two-level role increase where the defendant recruited another participant into a terrorism plot, prompted him to purchase weapons, and briefed him on a bombing plan). 6 Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 7 of 7 For these reasons, the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c)’s two-level aggravating-role increase. Accordingly, we affirm Offord’s 27-month sentence. AFFIRMED. 7