Court Opinion

ID: 3004384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-24 22:48:24.568238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:17.571042
License: Public Domain

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
                           Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ
                                    Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

              United States Court of Appeals
                                   ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit
                                   Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱȱ60604

                                 ArguedȱNovemberȱ10,ȱ2010
                                 DecidedȱDecemberȱ23,ȱ2010

                                            Before

                            RICHARDȱD.ȱCUDAHY,ȱCircuitȱJudge

                            DANIELȱA.ȱMANION,ȱCircuitȱJudge

                            DIANEȱS.ȱSYKES,ȱCircuitȱJudge

No.ȱ10Ȭ1518

UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA,                        AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict
     PlaintiffȬAppellee,                         CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱofȱWisconsin.

       v.                                        No.ȱ09ȱCRȱ84

EDWARDȱBOSIRE,ȱ                                  CharlesȱN.ȱClevert,ȱJr.,
    DefendantȬAppellant.                         ChiefȱJudge.

                                          OȱRȱDȱEȱR

       EdwardȱBosireȱpleadedȱguiltyȱtoȱmailȱfraudȱandȱwasȱsentencedȱtoȱ39ȱmonths’
imprisonment.ȱȱOnȱappealȱheȱarguesȱthatȱheȱshouldȱhaveȱreceivedȱaȱtwoȬlevelȱreductionȱasȱa
minorȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱclearlyȱerrȱinȱrefusingȱthis
reduction,ȱweȱaffirmȱtheȱjudgment.

        EdwardȱBosireȱandȱhisȱwife,ȱAngelaȱMartinȱMulu,ȱbothȱasylumȱrefugeesȱfromȱKenya,
engagedȱinȱaȱfourȬyearȱfraudȱschemeȱthatȱtargetedȱseveralȱMidwestȱreligiousȱcommunities.ȱ
Theȱcoupleȱrepresentedȱthemselvesȱasȱsiblingsȱandȱtoldȱtheirȱvictimsȱthatȱtheyȱwere
homelessȱillegalȱimmigrantsȱsufferingȱfromȱseriousȱmedicalȱconditionsȱincludingȱmalaria
andȱtuberculosis,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱsignificantȱlegalȱbillsȱattendantȱtoȱtheirȱimmigration
status.ȱȱDuringȱtheȱfourȬyearȱperiodȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱindictment,ȱtheȱcoupleȱnettedȱoverȱ$1.1
millionȱinȱproceeds,ȱincludingȱ$815,000ȱfromȱtheȱDiscalcedȱCarmeliteȱNunsȱofȱPewaukee,
No.ȱ10Ȭ1518                                                                                 Pageȱ2

Wisconsin.ȱȱThoughȱtheȱcoupleȱsaidȱtheyȱneededȱtheȱfundsȱforȱlegalȱandȱmedicalȱbillsȱand
tuition,ȱtheyȱusedȱtheȱmoneyȱtoȱmaintainȱtwoȱapartmentsȱandȱgambledȱawayȱnearlyȱ$1
million.

         InȱMarchȱ2009,ȱtheȱcoupleȱwasȱchargedȱwithȱmailȱfraudȱunderȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1341.
Bosireȱpleadedȱguiltyȱpursuantȱtoȱaȱwrittenȱpleaȱagreement,ȱandȱconcededȱthatȱtheȱrelevant
conductȱatȱsentencingȱshouldȱincludeȱtheȱtotalȱproceedsȱofȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱTheȱprobationȱofficer
setȱaȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ7,ȱseeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(a)(1),ȱandȱaddedȱ14ȱlevelsȱafterȱconcluding
thatȱtheȱlossȱwasȱmoreȱthanȱ$400,000ȱbutȱlessȱthanȱ$1ȱmillion,ȱseeȱid.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(b)(1)(H).ȱȱȱThe
probationȱofficerȱalsoȱaddedȱtwoȱlevelsȱbecauseȱtheȱoffenseȱinvolvedȱ10ȱorȱmoreȱvictims,
seeȱid.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(1),ȱandȱsubtractedȱthreeȱlevelsȱforȱacceptanceȱofȱresponsibility,
seeȱid.ȱ§ȱ3E1.1.ȱȱBosire’sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ20ȱandȱcriminalȱhistoryȱcategoryȱofȱIȱyieldedȱan
imprisonmentȱrangeȱofȱ33ȱtoȱ41ȱmonths.

        Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱpresentenceȱreportȱandȱagainȱatȱsentencing,ȱdefenseȱcounsel
arguedȱthatȱBosireȱmeritedȱanȱadditionalȱtwoȬlevelȱreductionȱunderȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2(b)ȱasȱa
minorȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱCounselȱarguedȱthatȱBosireȱhadȱfarȱlessȱcontactȱwithȱthe
victimsȱthanȱMartinȱMulu,ȱpointingȱtoȱseveralȱvictimȱstatementsȱthatȱcitedȱnoȱcontactȱwith
Bosire.ȱȱCounselȱalsoȱmaintainedȱthatȱBosireȱwasȱjustȱaȱ“prop”ȱorȱ“driver,”ȱandȱthatȱheȱoften
remainedȱinȱtheȱcarȱwhileȱMartinȱMuluȱtalkedȱtoȱtheȱvictims.ȱȱFinally,ȱheȱarguedȱthatȱBosire
hadȱlessȱthanȱfullȱknowledgeȱaboutȱMartinȱMulu’sȱinteractionsȱwithȱtheȱvictimsȱbecauseȱthe
coupleȱmaintainedȱseparateȱresidencesȱandȱwereȱoftenȱapartȱwhileȱBosireȱattendedȱclasses
andȱworkedȱasȱaȱtruckȱdriver.

        Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱrejectedȱtheseȱarguments,ȱreasoningȱthatȱbyȱbeingȱpresentȱbut
stayingȱinȱtheȱcarȱBosireȱfacilitatedȱMartinȱMulu’sȱstoryȱthatȱheȱwasȱinȱillȱhealth.ȱȱTheȱcourt
alsoȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱfraudȱhadȱspannedȱfourȱyears,ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱindicationȱthatȱBosireȱwas
notȱfullyȱawareȱofȱwhatȱwasȱgoingȱonȱorȱthatȱheȱhadȱforegoneȱtheȱbenefitsȱofȱtheȱfraud,ȱand
thereȱwasȱnoȱindicationȱthatȱheȱhadȱtriedȱtoȱstopȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱadoptedȱthe
probationȱofficer’sȱproposedȱfindings,ȱsentencedȱBosireȱtoȱ39ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment,ȱand
assignedȱhimȱjointȱliabilityȱforȱrestitutionȱtotalingȱoverȱ$980,000.

       OnȱappealȱBosireȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerredȱwhenȱitȱdeclinedȱtoȱgrantȱhimȱa
minorȬroleȱreduction,ȱrenewingȱhisȱargumentsȱbothȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱmereȱ“prop”ȱinȱtheȱfraud
andȱneitherȱnecessaryȱnorȱessentialȱtoȱtheȱfraud’sȱsuccess.ȱȱToȱmeritȱtheȱreduction,ȱBosire
hadȱtoȱshowȱbyȱaȱpreponderanceȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱthatȱheȱwasȱsubstantiallyȱlessȱculpableȱthan
theȱaverageȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱscheme.ȱȱSeeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2(b),ȱcmt.ȱn.3(A);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.
Doe,ȱ613ȱF.3dȱ681,ȱ687ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2010).ȱȱWeȱreviewȱforȱclearȱerrorȱtheȱfactualȱfindings
underlyingȱaȱsentencingȱcourt’sȱdenialȱofȱaȱmitigatingȬroleȱadjustment.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.
PanaiguaȬVerdugo,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ722,ȱ724ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).
No.ȱ10Ȭ1518                                                                                 Pageȱ3

         ButȱBosireȱprovidedȱnoȱevidenceȱatȱsentencingȱinȱsupportȱofȱhisȱargument.ȱȱNorȱdid
heȱintroduceȱanyȱevidenceȱchallengingȱtheȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱinformationȱcontainedȱinȱthe
presentenceȱreport.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHeckel,ȱ570ȱF.3dȱ791,ȱ795ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009)ȱ(statingȱthatȱa
defendantȱcannotȱchallengeȱaȱpresentenceȱreportȱbyȱmakingȱaȱ“bareȱdenial”ȱofȱitsȱaccuracy);
seeȱalsoȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHankton,ȱ432ȱF.3dȱ779,ȱ790ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005).ȱȱTheȱevidenceȱatȱsentencing
showedȱthatȱBosireȱengagedȱinȱaȱfourȬyearȱschemeȱwithȱMartinȱMuluȱtoȱdefraudȱaȱbroad
arrayȱofȱreligiousȱgroupsȱandȱpersons.ȱȱHeȱalsoȱtookȱseveralȱstepsȱtoȱassistȱinȱtheȱfraud,ȱby
receivingȱandȱcashingȱchecksȱonȱatȱleastȱoneȱoccasionȱandȱbyȱdrivingȱMartinȱMuluȱtoȱvisit
prospectiveȱandȱongoingȱvictims.ȱȱAndȱthoughȱheȱdisputesȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱbenefitȱheȱreaped
fromȱtheȱfraud,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱheȱdidȱbenefit—heȱadmittedȱthatȱheȱfrequentlyȱgambledȱwith
someȱofȱtheȱproceedsȱandȱspentȱtheȱrest.ȱȱHeȱalsoȱfailedȱtoȱdoȱanythingȱtoȱstopȱtheȱfraud.ȱ
Moreover,ȱBosireȱadmittedȱthatȱheȱassistedȱbothȱinȱcontactingȱandȱcontinuingȱtoȱdefraudȱthe
Carmelites,ȱwhoseȱlossȱconstitutedȱtheȱbulkȱofȱtheȱmoneyȱtaken.

       NorȱcanȱBosireȱdisavowȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱfullȱscheme.ȱȱHeȱacknowledgedȱinȱhisȱplea
agreementȱthatȱtheȱfullȱproceedsȱofȱtheȱfraudȱwereȱrelevantȱconductȱforȱsentencing
purposes.ȱȱItȱisȱnotȱclearȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱifȱBosireȱhimselfȱspokeȱtoȱanyȱvictims,ȱbutȱhis
absenceȱadvancedȱtheȱcouple’sȱstoryȱthatȱheȱwasȱ“tooȱsick”ȱtoȱmeetȱwithȱvictims.ȱȱAnd
thoughȱBosireȱarguesȱthatȱheȱhadȱ“lesserȱknowledge”ȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱnotȱpresentȱforȱallȱthe
meetings,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱcreditedȱMartinȱMulu’sȱpleaȬhearingȱtestimonyȱthatȱthereȱwere
“noȱsecrets”ȱbetweenȱtheȱcouple;ȱitȱneedȱnotȱhaveȱcreditedȱBosire’sȱunswornȱallocutionȱto
theȱcontrary,ȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2,ȱcmt.ȱn.3(C);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHoward,ȱ454ȱF.3dȱ700,ȱ703ȱ(7thȱCir.
2006).

                                                                                     AFFIRMED.