United States v. Gregory Wiley, 407 F. App'x 938

Wiley pleaded guilty to three counts of access device fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft in a Chase Bank scheme involving Smith.
Law enforcement arrested Wiley via a controlled delivery to his son's address; Wiley admitted involvement and named Smith as partner.
Wiley and Smith obtained and used stolen cards and IDs to rent vehicles, buy goods, and take cash; Wiley retained 40–50% with Smith and profited $10,000–$15,000.
PSR attributed $195,175.72 in loss; Wiley did not object and accepted the loss in sentencing.
District court adopted PSR and sentenced 65 months total; restitution ordered $15,000 to victims yet to be determined.
Wiley timely appealed challenging restitution scheduling, loss calculations, sentencing enhancements, acceptance of responsibility, and written judgments versus oral sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Restitution schedule missing; plain error?	Wiley argues no schedule of payments; restitution invalid.	Wiley argues error voids restitution portion.	Remand to issue schedule of payments (not vacating restitution).
Loss amount used affected sentencing procedure	Loss could be $37,500 due to profit split.	No objection to PSR; admitted loss; cannot challenge now.	No procedural error; lost objected via PSR admission.
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(B)(i) production of counterfeit ID	Argument that note 2 of § 2B1.6 applies; double counting risk.	Production of counterfeit IDs by Wiley; guideline applies.	District court did not plainly err; production falls within production of identity device.
Acceptance of responsibility credit	Should have credit for acceptance since pled guilty.	Conduct post-plea shows lack of acceptance.	Not clearly erroneous; denial affirmed.
Written judgments vs oral sentence; clerical correction	Restitution total inconsistent; judgments show $30,000.	Oral sentence controls; judgments merely clerical.	Oral sentence controls; remand to correct clerical errors; restitution schedule issued.

United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002) (schedule of payments required after restitution order)
United States v. Myers, 198 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1999) (restitution scheduling and plain error principles)
United States v. Coates, 178 F.3d 681 (3d Cir. 1999) (restitution schedule required; plain error)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc; when no objection, factual admissions bind)
United States v. Pruitt, 156 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 1998) (district court need not establish undisputed factual issues)
United States v. Adkins, 429 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005) (admission to PSR facts; no objection implies admission)
United States v. Jones, 551 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008) (production vs trafficking distinction for IDs)
United States v. Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2009) (production of counterfeit licenses case)
United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing production vs transport cases)
United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1998) (production/identity device guidance)
United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2004) (Bostic forfeiture / plain error framework)
United States v. Cofield, 233 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2000) (clerical corrections; Rule 36)
United States v. Johnson, 24 F. App’x 417 (6th Cir. 2001) (clerical corrections; oral vs written judgments)