Court Opinion

ID: 9373879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:09:39.119468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.172968
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14142    Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023   Page: 1 of 12

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-14142
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        MARK-SIMON LOUMA,
        a.k.a. Mark Louma,
        a.k.a. Babo,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 21-14142     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023    Page: 2 of 12

        2                      Opinion of the Court                21-14142

                       D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20104-JLK-1
                            ____________________

        Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Defendant appeals the 51-month sentence he received after
        he pled guilty to one count of possessing fifteen or more unauthor-
        ized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) and one
        count of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.
        § 1028A(a)(1). On appeal, Defendant challenges the procedural and
        substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After careful review,
        we affirm.
                                 BACKGROUND
               Defendant was indicted in February 2021 on multiple counts
        of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)
        and two counts of possessing fifteen or more unauthorized access
        devices, including credit card numbers, debit card numbers, and
        social security numbers issued to other persons, in violation of
        18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). He pled guilty to one count of possessing
        unauthorized access devices and one count of aggravated identity
        theft under a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to
        dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment.
               Based on the undisputed facts set out in the presentence re-
        port (“PSR”) and in the factual proffer submitted in support of De-
        fendant’s plea, law enforcement obtained a search warrant in July
USCA11 Case: 21-14142      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023      Page: 3 of 12

        21-14142                Opinion of the Court                         3

        2020 for a cell phone that belonged to Defendant’s co-conspirator,
        Geno St. Flerose. The phone contained several messages between
        St. Flerose and Defendant referencing access device fraud, identity
        theft, and COVID unemployment fraud, as well as large quantities
        of personally identifiable information (“PII”) from potential vic-
        tims, including names, addresses, birth dates, credit card numbers,
        social security numbers, and phone numbers. A separately exe-
        cuted search of Defendant’s residence in Miami uncovered two cell
        phones that belonged to Defendant and that contained evidence of
        fraud and identity theft. Defendant’s residence also contained a
        notebook full of PII, a bank statement and several letters containing
        the names of victims, and multiple credit and debit cards in the
        names of other people. Following the search of his residence, De-
        fendant was arrested pursuant to a federal arrest warrant. During
        the course of the arrest, Defendant attempted to destroy several
        cell phones that contained evidence of device fraud and identity
        theft.
               The PSR assigned Defendant a base offense level of 6 per
        § 2B1.1(a)(2) of the sentencing guidelines, and it added 12 levels un-
        der § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) based on a stipulated intended loss amount of
        between $250,000 and $550,000. A 3-level reduction for acceptance
        of responsibility and assistance was then applied, resulting in a total
        offense level of 15. The PSR described Defendant’s lengthy crimi-
        nal history, including two juvenile offenses that involved Defend-
        ant threatening two separate victims with a gun and an adult con-
        viction in 2016 for strongarm robbery. Defendant received
USCA11 Case: 21-14142        Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 02/22/2023       Page: 4 of 12

        4                        Opinion of the Court                    21-14142

        3 criminal history points based on the 2016 strongarm robbery con-
        viction and the fact that he committed the instant offense while
        under probation for that conviction, placing him in a criminal his-
        tory category of II and yielding a recommended guidelines range
        of 21 to 27 months for the device fraud count. 1 As noted in the
        PSR, the sentence for the identity theft count was statutorily man-
        dated by 18 U.S.C. § 1028A: a term of 24 months, which must be
        served consecutively to any other counts. The PSR thus set De-
        fendant’s total recommended guidelines range at 45 to 51 months.
               The only objection Defendant asserted at sentencing was to
        point out that the PSR contained a typographical error suggesting
        that Defendant had 4 criminal history points when in fact, as was
        represented in other places in the PSR, he had 3 points. Probation
        acknowledged the error and confirmed that with 3 criminal history
        points, Defendant’s criminal history category still was II, meaning
        that the guidelines range calculated in the PSR was correct. De-
        fense counsel indicated that he could tell the error was a typo and
        that he simply wanted to clarify the record. Counsel confirmed
        that there were no other objections to the PSR and that the defense
        was seeking a low-end guidelines range sentence of 45 months. In
        support of its request, defense counsel cited Defendant’s disadvan-
        taged background, including being sent to foster care after his
        mother left him at the age of 8, growing up in a rough

        1 Defendant did not receive any criminal history points for the two juvenile
        offenses.
USCA11 Case: 21-14142        Document: 28-1        Date Filed: 02/22/2023        Page: 5 of 12

        21-14142                  Opinion of the Court                              5

        neighborhood, and having his left eye shot out in a drive-by shoot-
        ing. Defendant also noted that the loss amount of the crime had
        been calculated based on the number of access devices involved in
        the offense rather than the amount of money received by Defend-
        ant.
               The Government, on the other hand, advocated for a high-
        end guidelines range sentence of 51 months. In support of its posi-
        tion, the Government argued that: (1) Defendant’s offense was
        particularly egregious because it deprived victims of COVID un-
        employment funds that were especially needed during the pan-
        demic, (2) at the time of his arrest, Defendant destroyed cellphones
        that contained evidence of his crimes, (3) the device fraud count
        involved a large number of access devices, and (4) Defendant’s
        criminal history score as calculated in the PSR did not take into ac-
        count two serious juvenile offenses during which Defendant had
        threatened two separate victims with a gun.
               The district court accepted the Government’s argument and
        sentenced Defendant to 27 months for the device fraud count, to
        be followed by the 24-month statutorily mandated consecutive
        term applicable to the identity theft offense, resulting in a total sen-
        tence of 51 months.2 Prior to announcing the sentence, the court
        stated that it had carefully considered the sentencing factors of
        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and it referred specifically to the “seriousness

        2 The sentence also included a supervised release term of 3 years, but Defend-
        ant does not challenge that part of his sentence on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 21-14142      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/22/2023     Page: 6 of 12

        6                      Opinion of the Court                21-14142

        of the offense, danger to the community, harm to the community,
        setting a precedent, and at the same time taking into consideration
        . . . mitigation of these factors”—such as Defendant’s difficult up-
        bringing and life circumstances—as well as “deterrence to other
        criminal conduct . . . and protecting the public.” Balancing the rel-
        evant factors, the court found that a 27-month, high guidelines sen-
        tence was warranted as to the device fraud count, which the court
        deemed “extremely serious” because it involved an elaborate plan
        to inflict “incredible harm to people who [had] their credit cards
        and their credit destroyed, raided, their funds stolen in this pan-
        demic time when so many people don’t have jobs.” At the conclu-
        sion of the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that there
        were no objections to the sentence.
               Defendant appealed. In his appellate briefing, Defendant ar-
        gues the district court procedurally erred by: (1) considering his
        two juvenile offenses, (2) relying too heavily on an estimated loss
        amount, and (3) failing to consider mitigating factors, including De-
        fendant’s difficult upbringing and life circumstances. According to
        Defendant, these errors led the court to impose a substantively un-
        reasonable 51-month sentence, when a sentence at or below
        45 months would have been “sufficient, but not greater than nec-
        essary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing.”
USCA11 Case: 21-14142         Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 02/22/2023         Page: 7 of 12

        21-14142                   Opinion of the Court                                7

                DISCUSSION
        I.      Standard of Review
               We use a two-step process to review the reasonableness of a
        sentence imposed by the district court. See United States v.
        Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014). First, we determine
        whether the sentence is procedurally sound. See id. Assuming it
        is, we then examine whether the sentence is substantively reason-
        able given the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing fac-
        tors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 3 Id. At both steps of the process,
        the party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing it
        is unreasonable. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189
        (11th Cir. 2008).
               We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence un-
        der a “deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v.
        Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Gall v. United
        States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007)). Where a defendant fails to object at
        sentencing, as occurred here, we review procedural reasonableness

        3 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the of-
        fense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, (2) the need to re-
        flect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to pro-
        vide just punishment for the offense, (3) the need for deterrence, (4) the need
        to protect the public, (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed edu-
        cation or vocational training or medical care, (6) the kinds of sentences availa-
        ble, (7) the sentencing guidelines range, (8) pertinent policy statements of the
        sentencing commission, (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dispar-
        ities, and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 21-14142      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023      Page: 8 of 12

        8                       Opinion of the Court                 21-14142

        for plain error. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303,
        1307 (11th Cir. 2014). To prevail on plain error review, the defend-
        ant must show, with respect to his sentence: (1) an error occurred,
        (2) the error was “plain—that is to say, clear or obvious,” and
        (3) the error affected his substantial rights. See Rosales-Mireles v.
        United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904 (2018) (quotation marks omit-
        ted). An error is plain if “controlling precedent from the Supreme
        Court or [this Court] establishes that an error has occurred.”
        United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014).
        An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights only if there is a
        “reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome” of the
        sentencing proceeding would have been different. Rosales-Mire-
        les, 138 S. Ct. at 1905 (quotation marks omitted).
        II.    Procedural Reasonableness
                A sentence is procedurally unreasonable only if the district
        court commits a “significant procedural error” such as failing to
        calculate or incorrectly calculating the guidelines range, treating
        the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) fac-
        tors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing
        to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1190.
        There simply is no viable argument that any such error occurred
        here, much less plain error. Defendant concedes that the court cor-
        rectly calculated his guidelines range, and he does not argue that it
        treated the guidelines as mandatory. Furthermore, the record re-
        flects the court’s careful balancing of the relevant § 3553(a) factors,
        including the mitigating factors offered by Defendant. Indeed, the
USCA11 Case: 21-14142      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023     Page: 9 of 12

        21-14142               Opinion of the Court                         9

        court expressly acknowledged Defendant’s “terribly difficult time
        as a kid growing up” and the tragic loss of his eye, and it indicated
        that it had taken these facts into consideration and tried to give De-
        fendant “every benefit . . . from that point of view.” The court did
        not commit procedural error when it decided the seriousness of
        Defendant’s crime and the harm it inflicted nevertheless warranted
        a 27-month, high guidelines sentence for the device fraud count,
        resulting in a 51-month total sentence.
                Nor did the district court procedurally err by relying on an
        estimated loss amount or considering Defendant’s juvenile of-
        fenses, as Defendant suggests. The court acknowledged during the
        sentencing that the loss amount was estimated, but it reasonably
        concluded based on the number of devices involved that there
        were a multitude of victims and that Defendant had used an “elab-
        orate system” to commit the crime, providing support for the loss
        calculation. As to Defendant’s juvenile offenses, this Court has
        held that such offenses may be considered to determine an appro-
        priate sentence. United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1137, 1141
        (11th Cir. 1993). See also United States v. Jones, 289 F.3d 1260, 1267
        (11th Cir. 2002) (“While [the defendant’s] juvenile convictions are
        not similar to the convictions in this case and are too remote to use
        in calculating [his] criminal history category, they represent serious
        criminal conduct, and the district court properly considered them
        in determining whether an upward departure was warranted and,
        if so, to what category.”). Section 3553(a) requires the sentencing
        court to consider the “history and characteristics of the defendant”
USCA11 Case: 21-14142     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023     Page: 10 of 12

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 21-14142

        during sentencing—an analysis that in cases such as this one may
        legitimately be informed by offenses the defendant committed
        while a juvenile. See Jones, 289 F.3d at 1267.
                In short, it is clear from the record that Defendant’s 51-
        month sentence is procedurally sound: the district court correctly
        calculated the guidelines range, carefully considered the relevant
        § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on facts that largely
        were agreed upon by the parties, and explained the sentence in de-
        tail at Defendant’s sentencing. As this Court has repeatedly em-
        phasized, the “decision about how much weight to assign a partic-
        ular sentencing factor is committed to the sound discretion of the
        district court.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254
        (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Defendant cites no
        procedural error that would warrant disturbing the court’s exercise
        of its discretion here.
        III.   Substantive Reasonableness
                The substantive reasonableness of a defendant’s sentence is
        measured based on the “totality of the . . . circumstances” consid-
        ering the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160,
        1189 (11th Cir. 2010). A sentence generally is substantively reason-
        able unless it “lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dic-
        tated by” those circumstances and factors. Id. at 1190 (citation and
        quotation marks omitted). Consequently, a defendant cannot pre-
        vail on a substantive reasonableness claim just by showing that a
        lesser sentence would also be reasonable or may even be more rea-
        sonable to some judges. See id. at 1191 (“A district court’s sentence
USCA11 Case: 21-14142     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/22/2023    Page: 11 of 12

        21-14142               Opinion of the Court                      11

        need not be the most appropriate one, it need only be a reasonable
        one.”).
               Defendant does not come close to making the showing that
        would be required to overturn his sentence as substantively unrea-
        sonable. We note at the outset that his 51-month sentence is within
        the guidelines range. “Although we do not automatically presume
        a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable, we ordinarily
        expect [such] a sentence . . . to be reasonable.” United States v.
        Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted).
        The sentence is also well below the statutory maximum term of
        ten years available for the device fraud count under 18 U.S.C.
        § 1029(c)(1)(A)(i), another indicator of reasonableness. See United
        States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). Indeed,
        the sentence is only 6 months longer than the 45-month sentence
        Defendant himself requested at sentencing.
                Against this backdrop, Defendant provides no factual or le-
        gal support for his position that the sentence should be overturned
        as substantively unreasonable. Defendant concedes that a 24-
        month consecutive sentence was statutorily mandated as to the
        identity theft count. As to the additional 27 months he received for
        the device fraud count, Defendant argues there was “more than
        sufficient argument and evidence offered during the sentencing
        hearing that . . . a much lower sentence . . . would comply with the
        purpose of the sentencing guidelines.” But he does not cite the ar-
        gument and evidence he is referring to, nor explain why the 27-
        month sentence imposed by the district court did not so comply.
USCA11 Case: 21-14142     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023     Page: 12 of 12

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 21-14142

               On the contrary, the record reflects that the district court
        conducted an individualized assessment of the facts at sentencing,
        balanced the competing considerations—specifically weighing De-
        fendant’s difficult upbringing and life circumstances against the “in-
        credible harm” inflicted by his “elaborate” plan to steal numerous
        victim identities and defraud a COVID relief program—and ulti-
        mately determined that a high-end guidelines sentence of
        27 months on the device fraud count, for a total sentence of
        51 months, was necessary and warranted by the specific facts of this
        case. We cannot say that the district court committed a clear error
        of judgment in its decision, or that the 51-month sentence “lies out-
        side the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the
        case.” See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted).
                                  CONCLUSION
             For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s sentence is
        AFFIRMED.