Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    United States v. Daniel Jean Charles, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Jean Charles appealed his 57-month sentence for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a minor role reduction. Under the two-pronged De Varon test, the court found that: 1) Charles was not a minor participant in the relevant conduct used to calculate his offense level, which involved using debit card numbers and social security information to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and payments, and 2) Charles was similarly culpable compared to his co-conspirator for the specific conduct for which he was convicted. The district court properly analyzed Charles' role based on his own relevant conduct rather than the larger criminal scheme.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Daniel Jean Charles, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views5 pages
    Daniel Jean Charles appealed his 57-month sentence for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a minor role reduction. Under the two-pronged De Varon test, the court found that: 1) Charles was not a minor participant in the relevant conduct used to calculate his offense level, which involved using debit card numbers and social security information to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and payments, and 2) Charles was similarly culpable compared to his co-conspirator for the specific conduct for which he was convicted. The district court properly analyzed Charles' role based on his own relevant conduct rather than the larger criminal scheme.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-04-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-10590

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Daniel Jean Charles appealed his 57-month sentence for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a minor role reduction. Under the two-pronged De Varon test, the court found that: 1) Charles was not a minor participant in the relevant conduct used to calculate his offense level, which involved using debit card numbers and social security information to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and payments, and 2) Charles was similarly culpable compared to his co-conspirator for the specific conduct for which he was convicted. The district court properly analyzed Charles' role based on his own relevant conduct rather than the larger criminal scheme.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views5 pages

    United States v. Daniel Jean Charles, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Jean Charles appealed his 57-month sentence for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a minor role reduction. Under the two-pronged De Varon test, the court found that: 1) Charles was not a minor participant in the relevant conduct used to calculate his offense level, which involved using debit card numbers and social security information to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and payments, and 2) Charles was similarly culpable compared to his co-conspirator for the specific conduct for which he was convicted. The district court properly analyzed Charles' role based on his own relevant conduct rather than the larger criminal scheme.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    Case: 14-10590

    Date Filed: 04/17/2015

    Page: 1 of 5

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-10590
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20509-KMM-1

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    DANIEL JEAN CHARLES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (April 17, 2015)
    Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Jean Charles appeals his 57-month sentence, imposed after he

    Case: 14-10590

    Date Filed: 04/17/2015

    Page: 2 of 5

    pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, 18 U.S.C.
    1029(b)(2), and one count of aggravated identify theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1).
    On appeal, Charles argues that the district court committed clear error when it
    denied a joint recommendation for a reduction to Charless offense level for his
    allegedly minor role in the offense under United States Sentencing Guideline
    3B1.2. Specifically, Charles alleges that the district court failed to properly
    analyze his role in the offense under the test provided in United States v.
    Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (De Varon). He
    also argues that the district court failed to consider his co-conspirators more
    significant role in the larger criminal scheme. After careful consideration, we
    affirm.
    [A] district courts determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a
    minor role adjustment under the Guidelines is a finding of fact that will be
    reviewed only for clear error. Id. at 934. The defendant bears the burden at all
    times of establishing her role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.
    Id. A defendant warrants a two-level reduction for playing a minor role in the
    offense if he is less culpable than most other participants, but [his] role could not
    be described as minimal. USSG 3B1.2 comment. n.5. A district court is not
    required to find a participants role is minor merely because the government
    recommends such a finding. See United States v. Erves, 880 F.2d 376, 381 (11th
    2

    Case: 14-10590

    Date Filed: 04/17/2015

    Page: 3 of 5

    Cir. 1989).
    Under De Varon, a district court conducts a two-pronged analysis of the
    defendants conduct to determine whether a minor-role reduction applies. 175
    F.3d at 940. First, the district court must assess whether the defendant is a minor
    or minimal participant in relation to the relevant conduct attributed to [him] in
    calculating [his] base offense level. Id. The first prong does not evaluate whether
    he played a minor role in a larger conspiracy. Id. at 944. Second, the district court
    may assess a defendants relative culpability compared to any other participants in
    the relevant conduct. Id. Under this prong, the court is limited to considering only
    those participants who were involved in the particular conduct for which the
    defendant was convicted. Id. The court does not take into account the role of any
    participants in any larger criminal conspiracy. Id. Furthermore, [t]he fact that a
    defendants role may be less than that of other participants engaged in the relevant
    conduct may not be dispositive of role in the offense, since it is possible that none
    are minor or minimal participants. Id.
    Here, the district court did not clearly err in denying a minor-role
    adjustment. Although the district court made no factual findings as to the first De
    Varon prong, the sentencing judge has no duty to make any specific subsidiary
    factual findings. Id. at 939. So long as the district courts decision is supported
    by the record and the court clearly resolves any disputed factual issues, a simple
    3

    Case: 14-10590

    Date Filed: 04/17/2015

    Page: 4 of 5

    statement of the district courts conclusion is sufficient. Id. The facts set forth in
    the factual proffer signed by Charles provide sufficient support for denying the
    adjustment. According to the proffer, Charles agreed to help Wesly Compere use
    debit cards numbers and social security card numbers to obtain fraudulent income
    tax refunds and social security Retirement Income Benefits (RIB) payments.
    Charles allowed Compere to use addresses under his control in furtherance of this
    scheme and forwarded any payments and correspondence in exchange for part of
    the proceeds. Charles also sent text messages notifying Compere and other coconspirators of the arrival of such correspondence and passing along personal
    identification information like social security numbers and dates of birth. Charles
    was involved with fraudulent returns totaling $239,433.90. In short, the record
    supports the district courts finding that Charles did not play a minor role in the
    offense.
    Neither did the district court err when it considered Charless culpability in
    the conduct for which he was convicted in comparison to that of Compere, his coconspirator. Charles asks this Court to consider Charless role in Comperes larger
    criminal scheme. But under De Varon, the district court may consider only those
    participants who were involved in the relevant conduct attributed to the
    defendant. 175 F.3d at 944 (emphasis added). The district court properly
    compared the financial loss and roles of Charles and Compere in the conduct for
    4

    Case: 14-10590

    Date Filed: 04/17/2015

    which Charles was convicted. We affirm the sentence.


    AFFIRMED.

    Page: 5 of 5

    You might also like