Opinion ID: 4527853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The charitable guise facilitated the scam

Text: The District Court also correctly applied a two-level enhancement because Rehfuss “misrepresent[ed] that [he] was acting on behalf of a charitable . . . organization,” when he really “intended to divert all or part of th[e] benefit” for his “personal gain.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) & cmt. n.8(B). We have upheld the application of this enhancement when the victims would not have engaged with the defendant’s charity if they had known that in fact it rested on lies and was exploited for the defendant’s own profit. Bennett, 161 F.3d at 192. That is true here. Rehfuss used the Good Samaritans’ name and ostensibly charitable mission to persuade senior centers to let him make his presentations and conduct his genetic tests. Had he disclosed his personal financial stake, the centers would likely not have invited him to speak, let alone to test their residents. Without the scheme’s charitable pretense, the fraud would not have worked. Rehfuss does not contest these facts. Rather, he claims that the enhancement does not apply because he never diverted charitable donations, but profited only from the labs’ kickbacks. That, he argues, distinguishes his scheme from the examples listed in the enhancement’s application notes. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.8(B)(i)–(iii). But as we and many of our sister circuits have recognized, the enhancement itself is much broader than those examples. See Bennett, 161 F.3d at 191; accord United States v. 6 Wiant, 314 F.3d 826, 829 (6th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). It applies whenever a defendant commits fraud by “misrepresent[ing] that he was conducting an activity wholly on behalf of [a charitable] organization.” United States v. Kinney, 211 F.3d 13, 20 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 664 (4th Cir. 1999)). That is exactly what Rehfuss did. The District Court thus interpreted and applied this enhancement correctly. C. Rehfuss directed the scheme and controlled others Finally, the District Court did not err in applying an enhancement for Rehfuss’s leadership role. A four-level enhancement applies if the defendant was an “organizer or leader” and the crime involved at least five participants. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). To qualify, the defendant must have had exerted control over at least one other participant. Id. cmt. n.2; United States v. Felton, 55 F.3d 861, 864 (3d Cir. 1995). One way to prove a leadership role is by showing that the defendant recruited others to join the scheme. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. Substantial evidence supports the District Court’s finding that Rehfuss was an organizer or leader. For instance, he wrote the script for and gave the presentations at senior centers as the “front man.” App. 337. He admitted that he “was key to designing the [scheme’s] system.” App. 119. He negotiated with the labs for bigger kickbacks. App. 319. And he recruited and controlled other participants, including by advertising for and coordinating with the doctors who responded to his Craigslist posts. Rehfuss objects that another participant, Sheila Kahl, did not get this enhancement, even though she was equally responsible and split the profits with him. But Kahl gave the 7 Government substantial assistance and got a plea agreement that stipulated that she was a minor player. The court could accept the Government’s role stipulation for Kahl, a cooperator, while reviewing the record anew to determine Rehfuss’s involvement. See Thung Van Huynh, 884 F.3d at 170 n.4. Rehfuss also objects that he could not have been a leader because he had to take instructions from the directors of the labs and others. But that does not mean that Rehfuss never exercised control over others beneath him. After all, the Guidelines allow multiple people to be leaders or organizers of a conspiracy. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. And the record confirms Rehfuss’s authority in the organization. So the District Court properly applied the leadership enhancement.