United States v. Butler, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14995

Butler was convicted on six counts of bank fraud arising from a counterfeit-check scheme controlled by Lyles and Sanders.
Butler recruited D.M., Sara Kimball, Eric Wicks, and Carrie Campbell to cash counterfeit checks for a share of proceeds.
At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for device-making equipment and a three-level enhancement for aggravating role as manager/supervisor.
The district court calculated an advisory range of 70–87 months and imposed 80 months plus restitution and a $600 special assessment.
On appeal, Butler challenges both the § 2B1.1(b)(10) device-enhancement and the § 3B1.1(b) managerial-role enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2B1.1(b)(10) applies to a counterfeit-check scheme.	Butler argues no device-making equipment was involved.	United States contends the enhancement should apply.	Reversed as to § 2B1.1(b)(10); inapplicable to the check-cashing scheme.
Whether the district court properly applied § 3B1.1(b) for managerial role.	Butler argues recruited individuals were not participants and thus not managers.	United States argues recruits are participants and Butler supervised five or more.	Affirmed; the district court correctly applied the aggravating-role enhancement.

United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1998) (excludes paper-instrument transfers from device-making scope)
United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2008) (checks-with-account-numbers not 'access devices' under §2B1.1(b)(10))
United States v. Chavez-Alvarez, 594 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2010) (willful blindness can establish knowledge for § 1344 crimes)
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) (willful blindness standard clarified by Supreme Court)
United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of guidelines; credibility findings virtually unreviewable)