United States v. Daniel Yummi, 408 F. App'x 537

Yummi pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1028A(a)(1), and 2.
District Court sentenced Yummi to 56 months for conspiracy and 24 months consecutive for identity theft, total 80 months, plus $80,000 restitution.
Yummi challenged the sentencing factors: application note 2 of § 2B1.6 precluding specific offense characteristics and sufficiency of evidence for ten-or-more-victims adjustment.
Government introduced redacted emails from the JJRado account identifying more than ten victims with personal identifying information.
District Court applied upward adjustments for intended loss, sophisticated means, and ten-plus victims, and relied on Exhibit A for victim count.
Appellate court reviews for procedural error and reasonableness, with standard of review including substantial deference to district court explanations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ten or more victims determination	Yummi argues insufficient evidence to show ten victims.	Yummi contends emails are unreliable to prove victims.	District Court not clearly erroneous; ten victims established by emails.
Application Note 2 interpretation	Note precludes all specific offense characteristics when sentencing with underlying offense.	Note only bars characteristics tied to transfer/possession/use of means of identification.	Court properly applied other SOCs not tied to identification transfer.

United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (focus on substantial requirement to be reasonable and procedurally fair)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (procedural reasonableness and consideration of 3553(a) factors)
Smalley v. United States, 517 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2008) (procedural review standards for sentences)
United States v. Brown, 595 F.3d 498 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)