Court Opinion

ID: 9364381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 15:00:34.742224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:37.906094
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10406    Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10406
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        NELSON COBO HERNANDEZ,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00158-MSS-TGW-5
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10406      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10406

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Nelson Cobo Hernandez appeals his sentence for conspiracy
        to commit wire fraud. After carefully reviewing the record and the
        parties’ briefs, we affirm.
                                         I.
               A federal grand jury indicted Hernandez and six codefend-
        ants on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation
        of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. The indictment alleged that from
        May 2018 until May 2019, Hernandez conspired with Eduardo
        Lamigueiro, Roxana Ruiz, Bertanicy Garcia, Marcos Cobo Gonza-
        lez, Junior Perodin Verges, and Jose Perez to commit wire fraud.
               The government later filed a factual basis for the charge, al-
        leging that Garcia, who worked for the Florida Department of Chil-
        dren and Families (DCF), accessed DCF’s database during the con-
        spiracy and obtained names and other personal identifying infor-
        mation of its clients. She transmitted the information to Lami-
        gueiro, Lamigueiro passed it to the other conspirators, and the con-
        spirators created false driver’s licenses using the stolen infor-
        mation. The conspirators, including Hernandez, then posed as the
        victims and purchased expensive merchandise using credit ac-
        counts they opened in the victims’ names. The government’s fac-
        tual basis alleged that Garcia provided personal identifying
USCA11 Case: 22-10406     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 3 of 11

        22-10406               Opinion of the Court                       3

        information of more than 2,100 individuals to Lamigueiro, result-
        ing in over $300,000 in loss.
                At Hernandez’s change of plea hearing, Hernandez stated
        that the interpreter had read the statement of facts to him and that
        there was nothing in the statement of acts that he disputed or disa-
        greed with. Defense counsel clarified that Hernandez admitted
        that it was his picture on fake driver’s licenses with the name and
        identification of others and that he used those licenses to open ac-
        counts at stores and purchase merchandise without the individuals’
        authorization. The district court accepted Hernandez’s plea and
        sentenced him to 26 months and 24 days of incarceration, to be fol-
        lowed by 3 years of supervised release. It also ordered him to pay
        $212,918 in restitution and waived imposition of a fine. This appeal
        followed.
                                        II.
               On appeal, Hernandez argues that the district court erred in
        (1) holding him accountable for a loss amount of $212,018 for pur-
        poses of determining his Sentencing Guidelines offense level;
        (2) ordering him to pay restitution in that amount when he was
        unlikely to be able to pay it; and (3) failing to grant a downward
        departure under § 5K2.23 of the Sentencing Guidelines giving him
        credit for the entire 19.8-month sentence he served in prison for
        three state convictions. We consider each argument in turn.
USCA11 Case: 22-10406     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court               22-10406

                                        A.
                We review the district court’s determination of the amount
        of loss attributable to the defendant for clear error. United States
        v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1232 (11th Cir. 2015); see United States
        v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the
        district court’s determination of relevant conduct under U.S.S.G.
        § 1B1.3 for clear error). “We will reverse for clear error only when
        we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
        been committed.” United States v. Thomas, 818 F.3d 1230, 1239
        (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
               For offenses involving fraud, the Sentencing Guidelines pro-
        vide an increase to a defendant’s offense level depending on the
        amount of loss that resulted from the fraud. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1).
        The amount of loss used to calculate the defendant’s offense level
        is the greater of the actual loss or the intended loss. Id. at cmt.
        n.3(A). “Actual loss” is “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm
        that resulted from the offense,” and “reasonably foreseeable pecu-
        niary harm,” in turn, means “pecuniary harm that the defendant
        knew or, under the circumstances, reasonably should have known,
        was a potential result of the offense.” Id. at cmt. n.3(A)(i),
        n.3(A)(iv).
               The sentencing court must calculate the defendant’s Guide-
        lines offense level based on his own conduct, conduct that he aided
        or abetted, and in a case that involved joint criminal activity, the
        conduct of others if that conduct was (1) within the scope of the
        jointly undertaken criminal activity, (2) in furtherance of that
USCA11 Case: 22-10406      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-10406               Opinion of the Court                        5

        criminal activity, and (3) reasonably foreseeable in connection with
        that criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A)–(B). In determin-
        ing whether a coconspirator’s conduct was within the scope of
        jointly undertaken criminal activity, the court must first determine
        the scope of the activity that the defendant agreed to jointly under-
        take. Id. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.3(B). “In doing so, the court may consider
        any explicit agreement or implicit agreement fairly inferred from
        the conduct of the defendant and others.” Id.
               The mere fact that a defendant was aware that he was part
        of a larger scheme is insufficient to hold him accountable for the
        conduct of others in the conspiracy, but actions that suggest that
        the defendant was “actively involved” in a criminal scheme permit
        the inference that the defendant agreed to “jointly undertake” that
        scheme. United States v. Whitman, 887 F.3d 1240, 1248 (11th Cir.
        2018) (quotation omitted). An agreement may be inferred where,
        “even though the various participants in the scheme acted on their
        own behalf, each of the participants knew each other and was
        aware of the other’s activities, and they aided and abetted one an-
        other by sharing information necessary for the operation of the
        scheme.” Id. at 1248–49 (quotation omitted).
               Here, Hernandez acknowledges that he understood the na-
        ture of the scheme and participated in it by using fake driver’s li-
        censes to open accounts at stores and purchase merchandise in the
        victims’ names without their permission. He concedes that he
        knowingly participated in a conspiracy that involved Lamigueiro
        as the coordinator or “hub” of the conspiracy and himself and
USCA11 Case: 22-10406        Document: 34-1        Date Filed: 01/19/2023       Page: 6 of 11

        6                         Opinion of the Court                    22-10406

        Gonzalez (who was Hernandez’s nephew) as a “unified ‘spoke.’”
        But he objects to being held responsible for loss amounts attribut-
        able to Garcia, Perez, and Ruiz because, he says, he did not know
        those conspirators and he was not directly involved in their fraud-
        ulent transactions.1
                 But evidence of a defendant’s direct involvement in a co-
        conspirator’s criminal activity is not necessary to show that the ac-
        tivity was part of a jointly undertaken criminal scheme. The gov-
        ernment is not required to show that the defendant discussed or
        even knew the details of his coconspirators’ actions, as long as the
        defendant was “fully aware of the objective” of the conspiracy and
        “was actively involved” in the scheme. Id. at 1249 (quoting United
        States v. McCrimmon, 362 F.3d 725, 732 (11th Cir. 2004)). And a
        “district court need not make a precise determination of loss
        amount, but only a reasonable estimate of it given the available in-
        formation,” including evidence presented at sentencing and undis-
        puted statements in the presentence investigation report. United
        States v. Moss, 34 F.4th 1176, 1190 (11th Cir. 2022).
             Evidence at sentencing and undisputed statements in Her-
        nandez’s presentence investigation report showed that Hernandez
        communicated with Lamigueiro via text message regarding the

        1 The loss amount attributed to Verges is not at issue in this appeal because
        Hernandez was not held accountable for that amount. The district court cal-
        culated the loss attributable to Hernandez ($212,918) by subtracting the
        amount of loss attributed to Verges ($95,000) from the loss attributed to the
        seven-person conspiracy as a whole ($307,918).
USCA11 Case: 22-10406      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023      Page: 7 of 11

        22-10406                Opinion of the Court                         7

        conspiracy, sharing victims’ personal identifying information, pho-
        tographs of receipts and merchandise, and passport-style photo-
        graphs of some of his codefendants—including Perez and Ruiz—
        along with other information necessary to create fake driver’s li-
        censes with their pictures. Some of the victim information that
        Hernandez sent to Lamigueiro was used by Perez less than a week
        later to open a credit account at a retail store and purchase thou-
        sands of dollars’ worth of merchandise, and Lamigueiro also sent
        Hernandez photographs of receipts from fraudulent purchases us-
        ing the information from victims that Perez impersonated.
               This evidence supported an inference that Hernandez un-
        derstood the overall objective of the conspiracy, knew of Perez’s
        and Ruiz’s participation in it, and was actively involved in facilitat-
        ing their use of the victims’ personal identifying information as part
        of the scheme. As to Garcia, it is clear that Hernandez knew that
        the group had a source from which it obtained the victims’ infor-
        mation that he and his other coconspirators used to create fake
        driver’s licenses and open accounts in the victims’ names, even if
        he did not know that source’s identity. The district court did not
        clearly err in determining that Hernandez knew or reasonably
        should have known that pecuniary harm resulting from Garcia’s
        theft and Perez’s and Ruiz’s use of the victims’ personal identifying
        information was a potential result of the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G.
        § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A)(iv).
USCA11 Case: 22-10406       Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10406

                                           B.
               Hernandez argues that the district court erred in imposing
        restitution in an amount that he likely will be unable to pay. Ordi-
        narily, we review the legality of an order of restitution de novo, the
        underlying factual findings for clear error, and the sentencing
        court’s determination of restitution value for abuse of discretion.
        Moss, 34 F.4th at 1192; United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322,
        1330 (11th Cir. 2007). But when a party objects to a restitution or-
        der for the first time on appeal or appeals on different grounds than
        those raised in the district court, our review is for plain error only.
        Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 2003); see
        United States v. Corbett, 921 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2019). Un-
        der plain error review, we may correct an error if the defendant
        demonstrates that (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain;
        (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and (4) the error “seri-
        ously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
        proceedings.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1324 (11th
        Cir. 2020) (alteration in the original) (quotation omitted).
               The district court did not plainly err in imposing restitution
        without regard to Hernandez’s ability to pay. To the contrary, the
        court was required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act
        of 1996 (MVRA) to order restitution “in the full amount of each
        victim’s losses as determined by the court and without considera-
        tion of the economic circumstances of the defendant.” 18
        U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see id. § 3663A(a)(1),
        (c)(1)(A)(ii). The amount of restitution must be the actual loss
USCA11 Case: 22-10406         Document: 34-1        Date Filed: 01/19/2023        Page: 9 of 11

        22-10406                  Opinion of the Court                               9

        suffered by the victims, which in this case is the same amount cal-
        culated by the district court for purposes of determining Hernan-
        dez’s Guidelines offense level. See Cavallo, 790 F.3d at 1239.
               Hernandez’s argument that the district court was required
        to consider his ability to pay when determining the amount of res-
        titution is based on the pre-MVRA version of 18 U.S.C. § 3664 and
        our precedents applying that earlier version. See United States v.
        Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515, 1529 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Re-
        millong, 55 F.3d 572, 574 (11th Cir. 1995). As we have explained,
        “the district court is not required, nor does it have the discretion,
        to consider the offender’s ability to pay when ordering restitution
        under the MVRA.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1292
        (11th Cir. 2000).
                                              C.
               Last, Hernandez argues that the district court should have
        granted his request for a downward departure under U.S.S.G.
        § 5K2.23 to give him credit for a 19.8-month consolidated sentence
        that was imposed for three separate state crimes that he committed
        at various times in 2018. At sentencing, Hernandez acknowledged
        that only one of the three crimes was relevant conduct under
        § 5K2.23, but he nonetheless requested a downward departure that
        credited him for the entire 19.8 months.2 Hernandez’s counsel

        2 To the extent that Hernandez argues that all three state crimes were relevant
        conduct for his federal offense and should not have been counted when deter-
        mining his Guidelines criminal history category, we decline to consider that
USCA11 Case: 22-10406        Document: 34-1         Date Filed: 01/19/2023         Page: 10 of 11

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-10406

        added that if the court was unwilling to grant a departure for the
        full sentence, he would “ask for the Court to essentially divvy it up
        and give him some credit” against his federal sentence. The district
        court agreed that a partial credit was appropriate and granted a
        downward departure of six months and ten days, or just under a
        third of the state sentence.
               We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez’s argument that
        the downward departure granted by the court was inadequate. See
        United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245–46 (11th Cir.
        2005). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), the district court’s discretionary
        decision not to grant a downward departure is unreviewable “so
        long as the district court did not incorrectly believe that it lacked
        the authority to apply a departure.” Id. at 1245. Hernandez does
        not dispute that the district court here recognized its authority to
        depart downward, so we cannot review the court’s decision to
        deny Hernandez the full relief he sought. See id. at 1245–46; see
        also United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006)
        (we assume that the district court understood its authority to de-
        part downward absent any contrary indication in the record).

        argument because his counsel affirmatively represented to the sentencing
        court that two of the state crimes were not relevant conduct. Doc. 410 at 46,
        49, 51. See United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (we will
        not address, even for plain error, a claim challenging an action that the defend-
        ant induced the district court to make or expressly acknowledged as appropri-
        ate).
USCA11 Case: 22-10406   Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        22-10406            Opinion of the Court                     11

                                    III.
              For the reasons discussed above, we affirm Hernandez’s
        conviction and sentence.
              AFFIRMED.