Opinion ID: 2791134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Parties’ Arguments on Appeal

Text: On appeal, Dimitrovski argues his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred in imposing the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(14)(B) organized scheme enhancement. Dimitrovski argues the enhancement applies only to ongoing, sophisticated operations analogous to the example of an auto theft ring provided in the Application Notes to § 2B1.1. Dimitrovski contends the enhancement does not apply because this case involves only a one-time transaction in which Dimitrovski attempted to resell stolen goods he had purchased cheaply, and not a complex, ongoing operation. 12 Case: 14-12417 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 13 of 17 The government counters the record shows Dimitrovski was involved in a scheme sufficiently organized, ongoing, and sophisticated to warrant the enhancement because Dimitrovski obtained financing to purchase the stolen goods by factoring his trucking company’s invoices; inspected the products; researched their value on the internet; told Brache about the stolen cargo, who then contacted Maytin in Miami to broker the sale; negotiated the sale; moved the cargo between various locations; discussed how to transport the load to Colombia; and offered to provide similar shipments in the future.