Court Opinion

ID: 9828020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:01:21.099314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:42.117948
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40811         Document: 00516881432             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 21-40811                            FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                   September 1, 2023
                                     ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Moses Moreira,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-316-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Moses Moreira pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and
   wire fraud. He was sentenced to 168 total months in prison and three years
   of supervised release. He raises multiple challenges to his sentence.
          Moreira contends that the district court wrongly applied a three-level
   adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) on the ground that he was a manager

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40811       Document: 00516881432          Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                     No. 21-40811

   or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or
   was otherwise extensive. Whether a defendant occupied a role as a manager
   or supervisor is a finding of fact that is reviewed for clear error. United States
   v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2015). We consider whether the
   record plausibly supports a finding that a defendant either controlled other
   participants or exercised management responsibility over property, assets, or
   activities. See id. at 283.
          There is record evidence to support the finding that Moreira exercised
   control over the assets, property, and activities of the “romance scheme” in
   which he participated. In particular, he opened and oversaw bank accounts
   in which the proceeds of the scheme were deposited and had authority over
   the proceeds. See United States v. Aderinoye, 33 F.4th 751, 756 (5th Cir. 2022).
   Moreira effectively was accountable for overseeing and handling the victims’
   funds for the purpose of carrying out the offense. He, inter alia, arranged for
   receipt of the funds and advised his coconspirators how the money should be
   sent to him, addressed issues as to the delivery and availability of the funds,
   oversaw and facilitated the disbursement of funds to pay his coconspirators
   and others, used the funds to effectuate trade-based money laundering, and
   retained a portion of the funds as compensation. Furthermore, the record
   reflects that the scheme was otherwise extensive and involved a large number
   of participants, both witting and unwitting, to achieve its aims. See § 3B1.1 &
   comment. (n.3). The scam operated on a relatively large scale and relied on
   the services of myriad participants to defraud numerous people and entities.
   See Aderinoye, 33 F.4th at 756; United States v. Fullwood, 342 F.3d 409, 415
   (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, the § 3B1.1(b) adjustment was properly applied.
          Moreira argues that the district court wrongly decided that an 18-level
   increase applied under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) because the loss attributable
   to him was between $3,500,000 and $9,500,000. We need not resolve the

                                           2
Case: 21-40811      Document: 00516881432           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                     No. 21-40811

   question of whether Moreira preserved the issue because his claim fails under
   any standard. See United States v. Infante, 404 F.3d 376, 389 (5th Cir. 2005).
          The district court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in determining that
   Moreira was accountable for a loss exceeding $3,500,000. While he disputes
   the loss finding, he effectively makes a bare denial of its correctness. Moreira
   has not offered evidence to rebut the loss calculation, which was detailed in
   the presentence report (PSR) and explained and verified by testimony at the
   sentencing hearing, was incorrect or unreliable. See United States v. Simpson,
   741 F.3d 539, 557 (5th Cir. 2014). He cites no evidence that undermines the
   calculated amount, identifies no valid sources for the funds that were deemed
   victims’ losses, and alleges no source of income that could legitimize those
   funds. The district court properly relied on the amount of funds in the bank
   accounts opened by Moreira to further the scheme. Investigators identified
   deposits and transfers into the accounts from known victims and recognized
   transactions that fit the pattern of funds that were fraudulently obtained via
   the scheme. Those transactions were attributed to the scheme based on the
   plausible inference that they were victims’ funds. See United States v. Masha,
   990 F.3d 436, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court reasonably decided
   that most of the unexplained deposits into the accounts were fraudulent. See
   id. at 446-47; United States v. De Nieto, 922 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2019);
   United States v. Jones, 475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Moreira argues that the district court incorrectly assessed a two-level
   adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) that applies when an offense affects
   an unusually vulnerable victim. He contends that the district court baselessly
   reasoned that the scam targeted elderly or otherwise vulnerable women and
   argues that there was insufficient record evidence to support that he knew or
   should have known that victims of the offense were especially vulnerable. We
   review this claim, which Moreira asserts for the first time on appeal, for plain
   error. See United States v. Mazkouri, 945 F.3d 293, 305 (5th Cir. 2019).

                                          3
Case: 21-40811      Document: 00516881432           Page: 4     Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                     No. 21-40811

          The district court did not plainly err in concluding that the vulnerable-
   victim enhancement applied. The record established that at least one victim
   was unusually vulnerable. See § 3A1.1(b)(1). The evidence—including the
   unrebutted PSR and the evidence offered at sentencing—reflected that the
   advanced age, lack of sophistication, and personal circumstances of many of
   the victims made them susceptible to the skillful deceit of the perpetrators of
   the scheme. The evidence plausibly supported that the point of the scam was
   to identify people online who appeared to be vulnerable and to develop close
   relationships with them based on a belief that they could be deceived and later
   defrauded. The description of specific victims’ experiences, and the impact
   statements that some victims submitted, detailed their unique vulnerabilities.
   Also, the record plausibly establishes that, given his involvement in the scam,
   Moreira should have known that the funds placed into his accounts were from
   women who were deceived and entrapped by a scheme that focused on and
   exploited their specific vulnerabilities. Many of the women were targeted on
   more than one instance and made multiple transfers or deposits into the bank
   accounts controlled by Moreira. Thus, he at least should have known that
   the victims included at least one person who was a vulnerable victim under
   § 3A1.1. See United States v. Myers, 772 F.3d 213, 221 (5th Cir. 2014).
          Finally, Moreira argues that a heightened burden of proof should have
   been used for the sentencing enhancements in this case. He alleges that his
   ability to discuss the case with his counsel was limited and that his counsel
   was ineffective on multiple grounds. We review this claim, which Moreira
   raises for the first time on appeal, for plain error. See United States v. Cabral-
   Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 188-89 (5th Cir. 1994).
          Although we have noted the possibility that a heightened standard of
   proof may be required in cases involving a dramatic increase in sentencing
   based on judicial factfinding, we have never required such a burden for factual
   findings at sentencing. See United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539, 558 (5th

                                           4
Case: 21-40811      Document: 00516881432          Page: 5   Date Filed: 09/01/2023

                                    No. 21-40811

   Cir. 2014); United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir.1993). Rather,
   after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we have held that all facts
   relevant to sentencing—that do not affect the statutory range—may be found
   by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d
   824, 834 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.
   2005). Thus, the district court’s use of the preponderance-of-the-evidence
   standard was not clear or obvious error. See United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d
   889, 901 (5th Cir. 2006); Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. To the extent that Moreira
   seeks to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not
   adequately developed to allow us to review such a claim in the first instance.
   See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.
   Aguilar, 503 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          5