Court Opinion

ID: 9887960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 18:39:52.111265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:44.990476
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, J., Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in the judgment and all of Judge Holmes's fine opinion except the discussion of United States v. Nash , 729 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Jokhoo , 806 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2015). In particular, I agree with the opinion's determination that the context of the Order of the Colorado Board of Accountancy made clear that the fraudulent conduct of which Defendant was later convicted would be a violation of the terms of his probation under the Order.
In my view, Judge Holmes's opinion is fully convincing without any need for support from Nash and Jokhoo . And I think those two decisions are misguided because they in essence transform USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) into a recidivist provision, increasing a defendant's offense level simply because the defendant had previously been penalized by a court or administrative agency for similar misconduct. See Nash , 729 F.3d at 406-07 (Garza, J., dissenting). I am therefore reluctant to embrace the reasoning that brought those courts to their holdings (even though Judge Holmes's opinion is careful not to endorse the holdings in the two cases).