United States v. Ivan Fonseca, 23-10229

Ivan Alonso-Fonseca pled guilty to possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity theft.
At sentencing, he received a 51-month prison term, which included a 14-level enhancement for a $1.5M loss under the Sentencing Guidelines and a two-level enhancement for possessing access-device-making equipment.
In his plea agreement, Alonso-Fonseca agreed to recommend a $1.5M intended loss amount.
On appeal, he challenged the 14-level loss enhancement, claiming the use of intended loss and the $500-per-device calculation were improper.
He also contended that the two-level equipment enhancement was impermissible double-counting, as all relevant conduct depended on such equipment.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the issues and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Alonso-Fonseca's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Loss Calculation Enhancement (14-levels)	Actual loss should be used; $500/device is arbitrary	Defendant agreed to intended loss in plea	Alonso-Fonseca estopped by plea
Application Note Validity	$500/device is inconsistent with guideline text	Note is valid, text is unambiguous	Estopped; no plain error shown
Double Counting (Equipment Enhancement)	Enhancement is duplicative; conduct already counted	Enhancement targets distinct act (equipment use)	No double-counting; enhancement ok

Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (sentencing guidelines commentary is binding unless inconsistent with guidelines or constitution)
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (deference to agency interpretation only if regulation is genuinely ambiguous)
United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (courts may not defer to guidelines commentary where guideline text is unambiguous)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents parties from taking inconsistent positions)
United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain error review standard for new arguments on appeal)