Court Opinion

ID: 9958266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 18:00:46.187277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.832427
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10703           Document: 52-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-10703
                                 Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                 ____________                                     April 8, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Billy Marcum, Jr.,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:22-CR-380-1
                  ______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Billy Marcum, Jr., appeals his sentence of 210 months of
imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1343. Marcum challenges the district court’s loss calculation
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), arguing that the losses caused by his
codefendant should not have been attributed to him as relevant conduct.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10703        Document: 52-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/08/2024

                                  No. 23-10703

Specifically, he asserts that the losses caused by his codefendant were not
relevant conduct for purposes of calculating his guidelines range because they
played substantially different roles and because the extent of his
codefendant’s misrepresentations was unforeseeable.
       We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United
States v. Okulaja, 21 F.4th 338, 343-44 (5th Cir. 2021). While Marcum
characterizes his challenge as a legal issue, “[a] district court’s determination
of what constitutes relevant conduct for sentencing purposes, including what
acts and omissions are part of a common scheme or plan as the offense of
conviction, is a factual finding that this court reviews for clear error.” United
States v. Ainabe, 938 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2019). There is no clear error if
a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole. Okulaja, 21
F.4th at 344.
       “A defendant convicted of an offense involving fraud or deceit is
sentenced based on the amount of loss attributable to his conduct.” United
States v. Benns, 740 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2014); see § 2B1.1(b)(1). Apart
from losses attributable to the offense of conviction itself, “the loss amount
may include losses attributable to other acts that constitute ‘relevant
conduct’ as defined in the Sentencing Guidelines.” Benns, 740 F.3d at 374.
Concerning jointly undertaken criminal activity, “relevant conduct”
includes “all acts and omissions of others that were . . . (i) within the scope
of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, (ii) in furtherance of that criminal
activity, and (iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal
activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
       In this case, the record reflects that Marcum admitted to defrauding
over 90 investors of more than $14 million; he made misrepresentations
about his business operations and expenses; he falsified reports regarding oil

                                        2
Case: 23-10703        Document: 52-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/08/2024

                                  No. 23-10703

sales and production information to entice investments; and he used new
investor funds to pay off other investors while representing that the returns
were from oil sales. He also conceded that he paid his codefendant a portion
of investor funds in exchange for soliciting investors and that he provided his
codefendant with false documents to assist in soliciting investors. Finally,
the fact that his codefendant’s method for defrauding investors differed from
Marcum’s does not establish a separate scheme given that they acted in
concert to defraud investors. Because the determination that the losses
caused by Marcum’s codefendant were within the scope of their joint
criminal activity and were reasonably foreseeable is plausible in light of the
record as a whole, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss
amount attributable to Marcum under § 2B1.1(b)(1). See Ainabe, 938 F.3d at
690.
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3