Opinion ID: 2791321
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Schneider’s Losses

Text: Schneider argues that the district court incorrectly tagged him with the entire loss caused by the Fifth/Third6 conspiracy without making the requisite findings under United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002). Under Campbell, when holding a defendant accountable for the actions of a co-conspirator’s relevant conduct,7 a district court must make “particularized” findings: “(1) that the acts were within the scope of the defendant’s agreement; and (2) that they were foreseeable to the defendant.” Id. at 399-400 (citation omitted). “In order to determine the scope of the defendant’s agreement, the district court may consider any explicit agreement or implicit agreement fairly inferred from the conduct of the defendant and others.” Id. at 400 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, app. n.2). Whether a defendant can be held accountable for a co-conspirator’s conduct is a factual determination we review for clear error. Id. at 398. Schneider essentially argues that he could not have foreseen the “entire” loss because he only participated in some of Nazzal’s Fifth/Third frauds. The district court, however, properly attributed all Fifth/Third losses to both Nazzal and Schneider because these losses were procured as part of the overarching conspiracy. Schneider prepared numerous documents associated with these frauds, discussions of which frequently took place at his law office. He signed fraudulent payoff letters related to these frauds as the “Treasurer” of both Alter Investments and G&S Development. Testimony also revealed that Schneider was present at nearly all of Nazzal’s closings. There was no error here. 6 Because we affirm Schneider’s conviction as to Count 7 (the Standard Federal lien jump), we need not consider his argument that he should not be held accountable for those losses. 7 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) defines “relevant conduct” in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity as “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” - 14 - Case Nos. 13-2612 / 13-2628 United States v. Nazzal / Schneider D. Nazzal’s Remaining Issues 1. Organizer/Leader Enhancement—U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a 4-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Nazzal argues mistakenly that the district court abused its discretion in applying this enhancement because he neither “recruited,” “controlled,” nor issued “orders” to anyone, and all of his co-defendants or associates were “independent operators.” The district court found that Nazzal directed at least six others in his various schemes including his attorney (Schneider), a bank loan officer (Morton), a title company representative (Carey), and several other associates (Tawbe, Zeaiter, and Harajli), and several witnesses explicitly testified as to Nazzal’s leadership role. We find no abuse of discretion in the application of the enhancement. 2. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement—U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 The district court applied this 2-level enhancement based on a conversation in which Nazzal told co-defendant Carey that they had “to keep [their] stories straight” to avoid detection. Nazzal argues that he was convicted on Count 8 for precisely the same conduct now being used as the basis for this enhancement. Nazzal’s falsification-of-records conviction on Count 8, however, stemmed from his obtaining written statements from co-defendant Morton—not Carey—in which Morton falsely denied receiving bribes. Nazzal’s statement to Carey thus provides a separate and independent basis for the obstruction of justice enhancement. See United States v. Stafford, 639 F.3d 270, 275-76 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming a § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement where a defendant told a witness “we can’t say anything, we have got to stick together”). - 15 - Case Nos. 13-2612 / 13-2628 United States v. Nazzal / Schneider