Opinion ID: 606347
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rinker

Text: 46 Rinker argues that the district court erred not only by adjusting his offense level upward 2 points, but by failing to adjust his offense level downward either 2 or 4 points, based on his minor or minimal role in the offense. A court may adjust a defendant's offense level upward by 2 points if the defendant engaged in more than minimal planning in an offense involving fraud and deceit resulting in loss to the victim in excess of $2,000. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A). More than minimal planning is defined as, inter alia, repeated acts over a period of time or, if a single act, more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n. 1(f)). Such planning also exists if significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense. Id. 47 The record supports the PSI's finding on this point. Because the district court did not err by adjusting Rinker's offense level upward by 2 points, it necessarily follows that it did not err by rejecting Rinker's argument that he was entitled to a 2- or 4-level downward adjustment. 48