United States v. Charvester D. Anthony
683 F. App'x 757
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony was convicted of receiving stolen U.S. Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and sentenced; he appealed convictions, a Guidelines enhancement, and restitution.
- Evidence at trial: victims testified they did not file the tax returns; signatures on refund checks were not theirs; Anthony cashed multiple fraudulent refund checks (deposited by ATM); Anthony told an investigating officer the checks were stolen and that he charged more for stolen checks; he claimed to have checked IDs but did not produce them.
- The PSI attributed thefts involving fraudulent tax returns in the names of 33 taxpayers to Anthony as relevant conduct; Anthony did not object to the PSI.
- District court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) for 10+ victims and ordered $252,088.03 in restitution.
- On appeal the government conceded, and the Eleventh Circuit held, that restitution exceeded the losses attributable to the offenses of conviction and must be vacated and limited on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 641 | Gov: evidence supports that Anthony knowingly received stolen government checks | Anthony: property obtained by fraud is not “stolen”; insufficient proof he knew checks were stolen | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient for jury to infer knowledge (IDs not produced, victims disavowed returns, statements to officer, ATM deposits) |
| 2. Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) (10+ victims) | Gov: PSI attributes 33 victims via relevant conduct; means of identification were used unlawfully | Anthony: only IRS was victim; enhancement limited to the particular charged case; identity‑fraud victims not harmed by his conduct | Enhancement affirmed; failure to object to PSI admitted facts; sentencing may consider relevant conduct and means of identification used for 33 individuals |
| 3. Restitution amount under the MVRA | Gov (concedes error): district court based restitution on all relevant conduct beyond convictions | Anthony: restitution must be limited to losses caused by conduct underlying his convictions | Restitution vacated and remanded; district court may order restitution only for losses caused by conduct underlying the convictions (no scheme element found) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lanier, 920 F.2d 887 (11th Cir. 1991) (intent to deprive shown by knowing use of government property for own purposes)
- United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming § 641 convictions for cashing fraudulent tax refund checks)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (jury credibility determinations that support verdict are assumed on appeal)
- United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (failure to object to PSI facts admits them for sentencing)
- United States v. Foley, 508 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2007) (restitution may cover losses from a scheme only if the offense of conviction includes a scheme element)
- United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (no plain error where binding precedent does not resolve statutory question)
- United States v. Romines, 204 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir. 2000) (restitution generally limited to losses caused by conduct underlying the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2007) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to government on sufficiency review)