Opinion ID: 202137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trafficking

Text: 12 The district court, again following the recommendation of the PSR, imposed a two-level upward adjustment to Alli's offense level after determining that his crime involved trafficking of credit cards. The relevant guideline states: If the offense involved ... the production or trafficking of any unauthorized access device or counterfeit access device ... increase by 2 levels. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B). Alli contends that, in order to qualify as having engaged in trafficking within the meaning of this guideline, an offender must have violated the federal trafficking law, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a). Alli was not charged with violating that statute. Furthermore, the statute requires that a defendant have obtained at least $1000 in value from his trafficking, see § 1029(a)(2); Alli contends that he has not met this threshold because he stood to gain only $150 for all the credit cards he planned to send to his contacts in the Netherlands. The government counters that, first of all, violation of § 1029(a) is not a prerequisite to the two-step enhancement, and, second of all, even if it were, Alli's conduct did violate that statute because he stood to gain more than $1000 in payments from the Netherlands-based purchasers. We conclude that § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) applies to offenders whose offense involves credit card trafficking whether or not that offense would also qualify as a violation of § 1029(a). Therefore, we find the enhancement proper without having to decide how much Alli was to be paid for sending the stolen credit cards to the Netherlands. 13 Nothing in § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) requires the underlying offense to also be a violation of § 1029(a). The drafters of the guideline were clearly aware of the existence and relevance of § 1029(a), since the guideline's application notes incorporate certain specific definitions used in the statute. See § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 8(A) (stating, e.g., that for purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(9), counterfeit access device has the meaning given that term in 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(2) and unauthorized access device has the meaning given that term in § 1029(e)(3)). We agree with the district court that trafficking sufficient to satisfy the guideline does not require a violation of the statute. Moreover, both the generally accepted definition of trafficking 8 and the statutory definition 9 are clearly satisfied here. Alli obtained control of stolen credit cards and attempted to sell them to his contacts in the Netherlands. Accordingly, he met the requirements for the two-level increase and the district judge was correct to impose it.