Opinion ID: 627480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Sec. 2B5.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Text: 19 We next address Mr. Gaither's claim that the district court erred in elevating his base offense level to fifteen under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B5.1(b)(2). Section 2B5.1(b)(2) states that [i]f the defendant manufactured or produced any counterfeit obligation or security of the United States, or possessed or had custody of or control over a counterfeiting device or materials used for counterfeiting, and the offense level as determined above is less than 15, increase to 15. The district court enhanced Mr. Gaither's offense level to fifteen, finding he had manufactured counterfeit documents. On appeal, a district court's application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts is given due deference. United States v. Short, 947 F.2d 1445, 1456 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1680, 118 L.Ed.2d 397 (1992). 20 Mr. Gaither bases his claim on Application Note 3 to Sec. 2B5.1 which states: [S]ubsection (b)(2) does not apply to persons who merely photocopy notes or otherwise produce items that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B5.1, comment. (n. 3). 21 Mr. Gaither first argues that under Application Note 3, subsection (b)(2) should not apply since he merely photocopied the bills. Mr. Gaither claims the use of the conjunction or, after merely photocopy notes, supports his interpretation. The error in Mr. Gaither's argument is that he did not merely photocopy the $20 bills; instead, the record shows he used ink to dye the photocopied bills in order to make them more realistic. Moreover, Mr. Gaither's interpretation of Application Note 3 was expressly rejected by this Circuit in United States v. Bruning, 914 F.2d 212, 213 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 990, 111 S.Ct. 531, 112 L.Ed.2d 541 (1990), wherein we reasoned that the defendant's proposed reading ... would protect even the most successful counterfeiters from the enhanced penalties of subsection (b)(2) based solely on the method of production, photocopying. 22 Mr. Gaither next argues his unsophisticated attempts at counterfeiting, as evidenced by the physical appearance of the counterfeit bills, should make Application Note 3 applicable. 4 The district court found that although the counterfeit $20 bills were unsophisticated, they did pass muster, $660.00 worth. We agree with the district court. 23 We find it hard to reconcile the facts with Mr. Gaither's claim. Mr. Gaither was able to spend thirty-three $20 bills at various establishments in the Wichita area before being arrested. While the counterfeit bills were apparently not of exceptional quality, they were also not so obviously counterfeit that they [were] unlikely to be accepted. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B5.1, comment. (n. 3). 24 We REVERSE and REMAND for resentencing.