Opinion ID: 2975372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Device-making equipment

Text: Burley and Clark further contend that the district court erred when it applied a two-level enhancement to their Guidelines sentences for the use of device-making equipment under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(1). The government argues that the defendants have abandoned this claim, noting - 14 - Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark that Clark specifically conceded that there was sufficient evidence to support the device-making-equipment enhancement as set forth in his PSR. Burley, for his part, simply states in conclusory fashion that “there was insufficient reliable information provided” to the district court to support this enhancement. The record contains evidence, however, that Burley rented space from Washington for the computer equipment, and that Jones and Hughes saw Burley using computer equipment to make and print counterfeit checks. Issues such as this that are presented in a “perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,” are deemed waived. See United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566 (6th Cir. 1999). We therefore conclude that the defendants have abandoned their challenge to the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(1) enhancement.