Opinion ID: 216598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ITB Enhancement

Text: In reviewing a district court's application of the Guidelines, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. De La Cruz-Garcia, 590 F.3d 1157, 1158 (10th Cir.2010). [T]o the extent [a] defendant asks us to interpret the Guidelines or hold that the facts found by the district court are insufficient as a matter of law to warrant an enhancement, we must conduct a de novo review. United States v. Martinez, 602 F.3d 1156, 1158 (10th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, although we review the factual findings made by the district court for clear error, we review de novo whether those facts are sufficient to warrant the ITB Enhancement. Mr. Vigil contends that the ITB Enhancement applies only to professional fences, and thus that for the enhancement to apply there must be evidence that a defendant actually sold stolen property. [1] Accordingly, Mr. Vigil argues, the district court erred in applying the ITB Enhancement in his case because there is no evidence that he ever sold any stolen property. The government, conversely, argues that we need only refer to a four-factor test set forth in an application note of the ITB Enhancementa test that at least on its face appears not to require evidence that the defendant actually sold stolen goodsto determine whether the enhancement applies. The government therefore contends that the enhancement can be applied without evidence that the defendant sold stolen property. We agree with Mr. Vigil. As described below, the text and legislative history of the ITB Enhancement indicate that for the enhancement to apply, there must be (1) evidence that the defendant received and sold stolen property, and, further, (2) evidence that the defendant was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property. We find no such evidence in the record in this case.