Opinion ID: 77733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court Correctly Applied a Sentencing Enhancement for Sophisticated Means.

Text: Robertson contends that the district court erroneously applied a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means. He argues that he employed a simple scheme in which he ordered items and did not pay. We disagree. Section 2F1.1(b)(5)(C) of the 1998 edition of the Guidelines provides a two-level enhancement if an offense of fraud otherwise involved sophisticated means. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(5)(C). The commentary explains that `sophisticated means' means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense. Id. § 2F1.1 cmt. n. 15. For example, [i]n a telemarketing scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction would ordinarily indicate sophisticated means. Id. Conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore bank accounts also ordinarily would indicate sophisticated means. Id. The district court found that Robertson had employed a rather clever and sophisticated method of doing business, and we are not, in our review of that finding, left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Robertson attempted to insulate himself by hiding behind false names, such as James Turner or Jay McGhee, and several false addresses. He used fictional entities to take advantage of discounted prices and switched entities every 30 days to circumvent the policy of Novell not to ship to customers that were more than 30 days in arrears. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Robertson had used sophisticated means.