Court Opinion

ID: 9946449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:01:54.242194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.849024
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10944    Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 02/29/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10944
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MYISHA AYANA GREEN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00096-AMM-GMB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10944     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-10944

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Myisha Green appeals her 94-month prison sentence, arising
       from a fraudulent check-cashing conspiracy. She argues that the
       district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement for her ag-
       gravating role as an organizer or leader of the conspiracy. See
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). After careful review, we aﬃrm.
                                        I.
              Green pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, see 18
       U.S.C. §§ 1343 & 1349, aggravated identify theft, see 18 U.S.C.
       § 1028A, and possession of a ﬁrearm by a convicted felon, see 18
       U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Her plea agreement with the government in-
       cluded a stipulated factual basis, which was included nearly verba-
       tim in the presentence investigation report (“PSR”).
              According to undisputed facts in the PSR, Green conspired
       with others, including her codefendant and boyfriend John Lee
       Neal, to produce fraudulent checks between May 2020 and May
       2021. The scheme involved the production of at least 115 fraudu-
       lent checks made out to at least 25 diﬀerent individuals. Green al-
       tered genuine checks she obtained from others—changing the
       payee and amount, and sometimes adding her personal phone
       number so as to ﬁeld potential inquiries and forestall detection—
       and recruited “runners” to cash the forged checks. The runners, in
       turn, provided the driver’s licenses of other individuals who were
       willing to pass checks, and Green used that information to produce
USCA11 Case: 23-10944     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024    Page: 3 of 6

       23-10944               Opinion of the Court                        3

       additional forgeries. Green’s phone contained over 70 pictures of
       driver’s licenses, as well as web history reﬂecting searches relating
       to cashing checks without raising suspicion, and her computer con-
       tained digital images of business logos, headshots, and handwritten
       cursive signatures.
              Green’s codefendant Neal was the named payee on eleven
       checks Green forged. Notably, in October 2020, Neal used fake cre-
       dentials and a forged cashier’s check in the amount of $35,688.96
       to purchase a Jeep Wrangler at a dealership. Then, in March 2021,
       Neal attempted to cash a forged check at two banks using fake cre-
       dentials. On both occasions, Neal communicated with and re-
       ceived instructions from Green before or during the attempted
       swindle. Green later obtained insurance for the Jeep.
              The PSR calculated Green’s guideline imprisonment range
       as 70 to 87 months for the conspiracy and felon-in-possession of-
       fenses, plus a consecutive 24 months for the identity-theft oﬀense.
       Green received a four-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G.
       § 3B1.1(a) for serving as an “organizer or leader” of the conspiracy.
       That adjustment was warranted, according to the PSR, because
       “Green was the person who orchestrated the activities of the other
       participants by developing the fraudulent check scheme, producing
       the forged checks, and instructing others, including Neal, how to
       carry out the necessary criminal acts. She also recruited runners
       and instructed them in the criminal activity.” Green objected that
       she was not an “organizer” or “leader” under § 3B1.1 and its
USCA11 Case: 23-10944      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10944

       commentary, and that another individual was the true leader of the
       conspiracy.
               The district court heard argument on the objection at sen-
       tencing. Green argued that her role was mischaracterized, that the
       group was very loosely organized, and that the text messages be-
       tween Green and Neal were not suﬃcient to substantiate the claim
       that she was a leader or organizer. The court concluded that a pre-
       ponderance of the evidence, “particularly about the relationship to
       Mr. Neal,” supported the organizer-or-leader adjustment. Accord-
       ingly, the court overruled the objection and sentenced Green to a
       low-end guideline sentence of 94 months. Green appeals.
                                         II.
                A defendant’s role as an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G.
       § 3B1.1 is a “factual ﬁnding that we review for clear error.” United
       States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005). The district
       court’s factual ﬁndings for sentencing matters may be based on,
       among other things, undisputed statements in the PSR. United
       States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). In reviewing for
       clear error, we will reverse only if we are “left with the deﬁnite and
       ﬁrm conviction that a mistake has been committed” and not
       “simply because we would have decided the case diﬀerently.” Ea-
       sley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quotation marks omitted).
              A defendant who “was an organizer or leader of a criminal
       activity that involved ﬁve or more participants or was otherwise
       extensive” is subject to a four-level guideline enhancement.
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The government bears the burden of proving
USCA11 Case: 23-10944      Document: 36-1       Date Filed: 02/29/2024      Page: 5 of 6

       23-10944                Opinion of the Court                           5

       an aggravating role under § 3B1.1 by a preponderance of the evi-
       dence. United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1221 (11th Cir. 2018).
              In assessing a defendant’s relative responsibility in the of-
       fense, courts should consider factors including the following:
              the exercise of decision making authority, the nature
              of participation in the commission of the oﬀense, the
              recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a
              larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
              participation in planning or organizing the oﬀense,
              the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the de-
              gree of control and authority exercised over others.
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), cmt. 4; see also United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d
       1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009). “In many of the cases where we have
       aﬃrmed a ﬁnding that a defendant played a leadership or organiza-
       tional role under [section] 3B1.1(a), there was evidence that the de-
       fendant had recruited participants, had instructed participants, or
       had wielded decision-making authority.” Shabazz, 887 F.3d at 1222
       (quotation marks omitted).
              Here, the district court did not clearly err in ﬁnding that
       Green was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy under
       § 3B1.1(a). Undisputed facts in the PSR show that Green was the
       point person for a fraudulent check-cashing scheme involving at
       least 115 forged checks and “dozens” of runners, some of whom
       she recruited. She forged the checks cashed by the runners. She
       received and maintained information, such as drivers’ licenses,
       business logos, headshots, and signatures, which could be used
USCA11 Case: 23-10944     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 02/29/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                23-10944

       either to generate fake checks or fake drivers’ licenses. She re-
       searched businesses where the runners could cash the checks with-
       out triggering suspicion. She also instructed and monitored an-
       other participant, Neal, on at least two occasions when he at-
       tempted to cash a forged check. Based on these undisputed facts,
       which support a view of Green’s central role in the scheme, we are
       not left with a deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction that the district court
       made a mistake in applying the § 3B1.1 enhancement. See Easley,
       532 U.S. at 242.
              Green argues that the government “failed to provide suﬃ-
       cient evidence to support a preponderance of the evidence ﬁnding
       as to all 7” of the factors listed in the commentary. But “[t]here is
       no requirement that all of the considerations have to be present in
       any one case. Instead, these factors are merely considerations for
       the sentencing judge.” United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026
       (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). While Green also iden-
       tiﬁed another individual as the true leader or organizer, “[t]here
       can, of course, be more than one person who qualiﬁes as a leader
       or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” U.S.S.G.
       § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4.
              For these reasons, Green has not shown that the district
       court erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) when calculating her
       guideline range. We aﬃrm her sentence.
             AFFIRMED.