Court Opinion

ID: 9880111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 19:00:55.457684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:16.941027
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12452    Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12452
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        ANTHONY JAMES BRUEY,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD-2
                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12452

        Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Anthony James Bruey appeals his sentence of 51 months’ im-
        prisonment with 3 years of supervised release and an order of res-
        titution for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspir-
        acy to commit money laundering, and illegal monetary transac-
        tions. On appeal, he argues that the district court failed to consider
        all of the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 factors for determining whether a de-
        fendant is eligible for either a minimal or minor role reduction, and
        thus the district court clearly erred when it denied his request for a
        role reduction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                                          I.
               Bruey was charged in an indictment with: one count of con-
        spiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; two
        counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and 2;
        one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation
        of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); and two counts of illegal monetary transac-
        tions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. Bruey pled guilty to
        these counts, and the district court adjudicated him guilty.
               Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-
        tencing investigation report (“PSI”), which reported the following.
        In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
        Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). Pub. L. No. 116-136,
        134 Stat. 281 (2020). Among other things, the CARES Act author-
        ized two different loan programs for small businesses: the
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023      Page: 3 of 11

        22-12452               Opinion of the Court                          3

        Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), which concerned loans
        funded by private lenders and fully guaranteed by the Small Busi-
        ness Administration (“SBA”), id. § 1102, 134 Stat. at 286. (codified
        at 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)), and low-interest financing through the
        Economic Injury Disaster Loan program (“EIDL”), id. § 1110, 134
        Stat. at 306. Bruey engaged in a conspiracy with his wife, a co-de-
        fendant below, to defraud both the private lenders funding the PPP
        and the SBA. Between April 2020 and April 2021, Bruey and his
        wife (“the Brueys”) submitted over two dozen fraudulent loan ap-
        plications seeking benefits totaling close to $2 million. At the time,
        Bruey was on state probation for aggravated assault/deadly
        weapon and battery by strangulation.
               The Brueys applied for fifteen EIDL loans, six of which were
        funded for a total of $763,300. One of those applications, filed in
        Bruey’s name for a purported sole proprietorship, “fraudulently
        represented the gross revenues, costs of goods sold, and number of
        employees for a business that did not exist.” The application also
        falsely stated that Bruey had not been convicted of a felony or
        served a term of probation within the last five years. These false
        statements caused the SBA to approve a $76,800 loan and a $10,000
        advance and deposit the funds in Bruey’s bank account.
                The Brueys also applied for twelve PPP loans, six of which
        were funded for a total of around $118,000. For example, in late
        April 2020, a fraudulent PPP loan application was submitted in
        Bruey’s name. The application represented that Bruey was an eli-
        gible, self-employed individual and falsely stated that his net profits
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023      Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12452

        for his business were $110,719 in 2019. Again, the application
        falsely stated that Bruey had not been convicted of a felony or
        served a term of probation within the last five years. Due to these
        false representations, a bank funded a $20,583.34 PPP loan depos-
        ited in Bruey’s bank account.
               Bruey misused these funds for his personal gain. The Brueys
        received twelve EIDL and PPP loans, with the proceeds totaling
        over $880,000.
               The PSI grouped together all six counts for sentencing
        guideline calculation purposes pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d).
        The PSI calculated Bruey’s offense level pursuant U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1,
        because that was the offense guideline that produced the highest
        offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(b). This meant an initial base
        offense number of seven, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1), and a sixteen-
        level enhancement because the intended loss here was more than
        $1,500,000 but less than $3,500,000, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), re-
        sulting in a base offense level of 23. Further, because Bruey was
        adjudicated guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit money
        laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), the offense level was
        enhanced by two. See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B). The offense level
        was then decreased by two because Bruey accepted responsibility
        for the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), and decreased by one be-
        cause Bruey assisted authorities in the prosecution of his own mis-
        conduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a
        guilty plea, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Therefore, his total offense
        level was 22. His criminal history category was III based on a
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-12452               Opinion of the Court                         5

        criminal history score of four. The resulting guidelines range was
        51 to 63 months’ imprisonment.
               In his written objection, Bruey objected to the PSI’s conclu-
        sion that he was not entitled to a decrease in offense level based on
        his role in the offense. Bruey argued that he should have received
        either a minimal or minor role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G.
        § 3B1.2. Bruey agreed that he knew the funds were obtained fraud-
        ulently and benefited from them, but he denied personally submit-
        ting any of the claims in the case. The PSI, however, concluded
        that no reduction was warranted, pointing first to the fact that four
        EIDL applications and two PPP applications were submitted in
        Bruey’s name using his personal identifying information. The PSI
        also noted that Bruey knowingly received fraudulent funds, some
        of which were deposited into bank accounts where he was the sole
        signatory, and that Bruey then used these funds with his wife to
        buy, among other things, vehicles and a shared residence.
               Bruey renewed his objection and made similar arguments
        during his first sentencing hearing. Bruey’s counsel told the district
        court that Bruey “fully acknowledges that he knew it was being
        done on his behalf, and he fully acknowledges receiving the
        money, and he fully acknowledges spending the money.” But that
        because Bruey “did not, at any time, file any of the electronic doc-
        uments or applications” for either the PPP or EIDL loans, counsel
        argued he should receive a four-level minimum role reduction. In
        response, the government acknowledged that Mrs. Bruey was on
        probation for public assistance fraud at the time the instant crimes
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12452

        were committed and said that it considered “her to have more of
        the white-collar mind” than Bruey. The government also acknowl-
        edged that most applications were filed in Mrs. Bruey’s name, pos-
        sibly because Bruey was below the credit score threshold needed
        to qualify for an EIDL loan. It was the “government’s belief that a
        lot of the brains behind the operation was” Mrs. Bruey. Even with
        all of this, the government said that Bruey “understood and knew
        of the scheme’s purpose, and that it was going on.” And “he cer-
        tainly benefited from it.”
               Later, at a joint sentencing hearing for both Bruey and his
        wife, Bruey again objected for not receiving a minimal role reduc-
        tion, with his counsel arguing that Bruey did not file any of the loan
        applications and that he did not do any of the related internet work.
        But Bruey’s counsel did acknowledge that Bruey co-owned one of
        the purported companies for which the Brueys received loans.
        The government responded that, while Bruey was not the one that
        created many of the fraudulent documents and applications, he
        benefitted greatly from them, which is a pertinent factor in making
        a minimal or minor role determination. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt.
        n.3(C)(iii). The government noted that the Brueys had purchased
        vehicles with the loan money as well as a home worth over
        $200,000. The government further argued that Bruey knew what
        was happening with respect to the fraudulent scheme. The district
        court ultimately overruled Bruey’s objection without explanation.
              Before the district court sentenced Bruey, it also heard from
        the government and Mrs. Bruey concerning her sentence. Mrs.
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023    Page: 7 of 11

        22-12452               Opinion of the Court                        7

        Bruey’s counsel read text messages that Bruey wrote to Mrs. Bruey
        and argued that Bruey was abusive. Counsel also quoted from a
        psychologist’s report, which provided that Mrs. Bruey “is highly in-
        fluenced and susceptible to coercion due to the power and control
        that Mr. Bruey exerts over her. She is not allowed to question his
        authority for fear of being attacked verbally and physically.” In
        light of this evidence, counsel argued that Mrs. Bruey “was the
        peon of the operation.”
              The district court sentenced Bruey to 51 months imprison-
        ment with 3 years of supervised release and an order of restitution.
        This appeal follows.
                                         II.
               We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for
        clear error. United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th
        Cir. 2016). “Under this standard, we will not disturb a district
        court’s findings ‘unless we are left with a definite and firm convic-
        tion that a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Clarke,
        562 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Craw-
        ford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005)). This is because district
        court judges are “in the best position to weigh and assess both the
        defendant’s role in her relevant conduct and the relative degrees of
        culpability of the other participants in that conduct.” United States
        v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 938 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). There-
        fore, the “district court’s ‘choice between two permissible views of
        the evidence’ as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely
        constitute clear error ‘[s]o long as the basis of the trial court’s
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1       Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12452

        decision is supported by the record and does not involve a misap-
        plication of a rule of law.’” Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192 (alteration
        in original) (quoting De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945).
                                         III.
                A “defendant may receive a two to four level reduction in
        [his] base offense level where [his] role in the offense can be de-
        scribed as minimal, minor, or somewhere in between.” De Varon,
        175 F.3d at 939. “Minimal participants may receive a four-level re-
        duction, minor participants may receive a two-level reduction, and
        those whose participation falls in between may receive a three-
        level reduction.” Id. (citing U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2(a)–(b)). Minimal par-
        ticipants are defendants who are “plainly among the least culpable
        of those involved in the conduct of a group.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt.
        n.4. “[T]he defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the
        scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others
        is indicative of a role as minimal participant.” Id. A minor partici-
        pant is a defendant “who is less culpable than most other partici-
        pants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be described
        as minimal.” Id. cmt. n.5. The defendant bears the burden to prove
        by the preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for a miti-
        gating role. United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 591 (11th Cir.
        2015).
               The decision about whether to apply a role reduction is
        “based on the totality of the circumstances” and is “heavily depend-
        ent upon the facts of the particular case.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt.
        n.3(C).    The district court should consider, “to the extent
USCA11 Case: 22-12452      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        22-12452               Opinion of the Court                         9

        applicable,” United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 732 (11th Cir.
        2019), the following non-exhaustive list of factors:
               (i) the degree to which the defendant understood the
               scope and structure of the criminal activity;
               (ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in
               planning or organizing the criminal activity;
               (iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised de-
               cision-making authority or influenced the exercise of
               decision-making authority;
               (iv) the nature and extent of the defendant’s partici-
               pation in the commission of the criminal activity, in-
               cluding the acts the defendant performed and the re-
               sponsibility and discretion the defendant had in per-
               forming those acts;
               (v) the degree to which the defendant stood to bene-
               fit from the criminal activity.
        U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). Along with these factors, we have
        provided two overarching principles to guide district courts: “first,
        the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which [he] has been
        held accountable at sentencing, and second, [his] role as compared
        to that of other participants in [his] relevant conduct.” De Varon,
        175 F.3d at 940.
               Importantly, however, we have held that, in considering
        these factors, “a district court is not required to make any specific
        findings other than the ultimate determination of the defendant’s
        role in the offense.” Id. “So long as the district court’s decision is
        supported by the record and the court clearly resolves any disputed
USCA11 Case: 22-12452     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12452

        factual issues, a simple statement of the district court’s conclusion
        is sufficient.” Id. at 939. Therefore, when we evaluate a district
        court’s sentencing decision, we may “consider the record from the
        entire sentencing hearing and need not rely upon the district
        court’s summary statement made at the closing of the sentencing
        hearing.” United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929, 934 (11th Cir. 1991).
               Bruey has failed to show that the district court clearly erred
        in denying a role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The record
        supports the district court’s decision. While Bruey argues that his
        wife is more culpable because she submitted the loan applications,
        we have said “[t]he fact that a defendant’s role may be less than that
        of other participants engaged in the relevant conduct may not be
        dispositive of role in the offense, since it is possible that none are
        minor or minimal participants.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. And
        the record provides ample evidence of Bruey’s involvement be-
        yond a mitigating role.
               For example, Bruey “knew the [loan] funds were fraudu-
        lently obtained,” and “fully acknowledges that he knew it was be-
        ing done on his behalf.” There was also evidence consisting of text
        message conversations between Bruey and his wife about their
        scheme. All of this is relevant to the “degree to which [Bruey] un-
        derstood the scope and structure of the criminal activity.” See
        U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C)(i). Record evidence also indicates that
        Bruey had the ability to coerce and pressure his wife to act on his
        behalf and that he had physically abused her in the past, which
        speaks to the “degree to which [he] . . . influenced the exercise of
USCA11 Case: 22-12452        Document: 36-1        Date Filed: 09/27/2023        Page: 11 of 11

        22-12452                  Opinion of the Court                              11

        decision-making authority.” 1 See id. cmt. n.3(C)(iii). Further, as has
        been discussed, Bruey stood to benefit, and did benefit, from the
        couples’ fraudulent activity. See id. cmt. n.3(C)(v) (listing as a rele-
        vant factor “the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit
        from the criminal activity”). With this record, we cannot conclude
        that the district court clearly erred.
                And while Bruey points us to cases where we “explained the
        legal error in making a minor role decision based solely on one fac-
        tor,” United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1250 (11th Cir. 2018),
        the district court here did not cabin its decision to one factor. Un-
        like in those cases, the district court below did not indicate that one
        factor—here, the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit
        from the criminal activity—was “the only factor to be considered in
        a case like this one.” Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1195.
               We thus conclude that the district court did not err when it
        denied Bruey both a minor participant and a minimal participant
        role reduction. A review of the record shows that the district court
        properly examined the totality of the circumstances and found that
        Bruey was not eligible for either role reduction. Accordingly, we
        affirm Bruey’s sentence.
               AFFIRMED.

        1 In sentencing Bruey’s wife, the district court took the couple’s relationship

        into account and the court concluded that the relationship could not explain
        and justify all of Mrs. Bruey’s behavior.