Opinion ID: 2791134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Organized Scheme Analysis

Text: Section 2B1.1(b)(14) of the Guidelines provides: If the offense involved an organized scheme to steal or to receive stolen (A) vehicles or vehicle parts; or (B) goods or chattels that are part of a cargo shipment, increase by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(14)(B). The Commentary to § 2B1.1 explains the enhancement applies “in the case of an ongoing, sophisticated operation (e.g., an auto theft ring or ‘chop shop’).” Id., comment. (n. 11). The district court found Dimitrovski’s offense involved an “organized scheme” and applied the enhancement. The district court further adopted all of the fact findings from the PSI, stating: [T]he shipment was stolen from a truck in Tennessee and made its way to Illinois where Mr. Dimitrovski is living in financial straits, he gets $10,000 through a factoring company of ladies -- whose names he does not remember -- to purchase this load. 13 Case: 14-12417 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 14 of 17 Which he puts on a tractor trailer that is registered to RUS Corporation, his trucking company, which in fact has an office with two fulltime employees and leases trucks. And this load comes here where two other persons are engaged to sell it. So, this involved not only Mr. Dimitrovski, it also involved an unknown financier and the persons down here who were hired to then get rid of the goods. So I think the two level enhancement is, according to the case law, 18 appropriate. . . . 19 We review the district court’s finding that an organized scheme existed for clear error. See United States v. Clarke, 562 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir.2009) (reviewing district court’s finding that defendant used sophisticated means for clear error, explaining “[w]e review the district court's findings of fact related to the imposition of sentencing enhancements . . . for clear error.”). Again, in applying clear error, “we will not disturb a district court's findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations and quotations omitted). We conclude the district court did not err, much less clearly err, in finding Dimitrovski’s receipt, possession, and attempted sale of the L’Oreal products involved an “organized scheme.” The facts show an organized, ongoing, and 18 The cases brought up at the sentencing hearing were unpublished and therefore not authoritative. 19 Again, Dimitrovski did not object to any of the facts contained in the PSI. 14 Case: 14-12417 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 15 of 17 sophisticated operation. 20 Dimitrovski did not simply stumble across a good deal at a truck stop and make an impulsive purchase. Dimitrovski’s crime was financed, planned, and deliberate. He first obtained $10,000 by factoring his company’s invoices with Capital Depot. Then in the span of one day, Dimitrovski purchased the stolen cargo; Dimitrovski and Brache collaborated to load the stolen cargo onto one of Dimitrovski’s trailers; Brache called Maytin to broker the sale; and Dimitrovski instructed Brache to drive the load to Miami, where Brache would meet with Maytin and show him the goods. That Dimitrovski was able to make all these arrangements in one day reflects the crime’s sophistication. The actions of Dimitrovski and his codefendants upon arriving in Miami further display the sophisticated nature of the operation. Like savvy businessmen, Dimitrovski and Brache met with Maytin’s buyer and negotiated the price for the stolen load over the course of several days, initially asking for $250,000 but compromising for $170,000. They also expended significant effort to conceal their illegal activities: Dimitrovski wore latex gloves at the Miami truck yard and Maytin advised they remove the shipping labels on the stolen load so the products could not be traced back to them. Lastly, the buyer planned to transport the goods to Colombia. Therefore, the stolen cargo not only moved across state lines (from 20 We do not decide whether the organized scheme enhancement applies when the underlying operation is organized and sophisticated, but not ongoing, because Dimitrovski’s operation was all three. 15 Case: 14-12417 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 16 of 17 Tennessee to Illinois then down to Florida); the cargo was going to be shipped down to some unknown buyer in Colombia. Under these circumstances, Dimitrovski’s receipt, possession, and attempted sale of the L’Oreal products involved a sophisticated operation. Dimitrovski also planned for the operation to be ongoing. After the informant agreed to buy the stolen L’Oreal load, Dimitrovski told the informant he could bring more loads in the future. Dimitrovski’s arrest before he had a chance to accomplish another transaction does not negate the ongoing nature of the scheme. An offense may involve an ongoing, sophisticated operation even if it is committed only once. For example, suppose a defendant sets up a “chop shop,” which is the Guidelines’ example of an “ongoing, sophisticated operation.” See § 2B1.1, comment. (n. 11). He rents a warehouse, hires employees, establishes all the necessary connections, and has every intent of running a continuing operation—but after chopping up his first car, he is arrested. Our case is no different from this hypothetical. The operation is ongoing because the defendant intends for it to be so. Dimitrovski intended to continue buying and reselling cargo with the same people, and therefore his operation was ongoing. On these facts, we are not “left with a definite and firm conviction” the district court erred in finding Dimitrovski’s offense involved an “organized scheme.” Ghertler, 605 F.3d at 1267 (citations and quotations omitted). 16 Case: 14-12417 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 17 of 17