United States v. James Lee Cobb, III
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21391
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- From ~2011–2013 Cobb and his wife stole veterans’ and medical patients’ identities and filed fraudulent e-filed tax returns, loading refunds onto prepaid debit cards; searches of his home revealed ~7,000 identifying records, >300 debit cards, and two firearms.
- IRS work identified 5,811 fraudulent returns tied to the recovered identifying information; an IRS agent attributed 805 of those returns to Cobb based on common addresses, IPs, emails, and refund-deposit patterns.
- PSR applied multiple enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines (including an 18‑level loss enhancement for >$2.5M intended loss, a 6‑level victims enhancement for ≥250 victims, a 2‑level vulnerable‑victim enhancement, a 2‑level unauthorized‑access‑device enhancement, and an armed‑career‑criminal designation), producing a Guidelines range that led to a 324‑month sentence and $1,820,759 restitution.
- At sentencing Cobb withdrew objections to the unauthorized‑access‑device enhancement and the armed‑career‑criminal designation; the Government presented agent testimony and evidence to support loss, victim count, and restitution calculations.
- The district court adopted the agent’s estimates (intended loss ≈ $5.6M; actual loss/restitution $1,820,759; 805 victims) and applied the vulnerable‑victim enhancement; Cobb appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Cobb's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss amount (§2B1.1 intended loss > $2.5M) | Agent’s spreadsheet and testimony reasonably attributed $5.6M intended loss to Cobb (805 returns). | Agent’s attribution speculative; only 60–70 returns tied to hot‑spot IP; cannot assume rapid‑filing ability. | Affirmed: district court’s reasonable estimate supported by specific, reliable evidence; no clear error. |
| Number of victims (§2B1.1 ≥250 victims) | 805 attributable returns → >250 victims. | Attribution to Cobb speculative and unsupported. | Affirmed: victim count supported by agent’s analysis and permissible inferences. |
| Restitution ($1,820,759) | Actual IRS payouts on the 805 attributable returns = restitution amount. | Amount not proven to be caused by Cobb. | Affirmed: restitution based on reasonable estimate and preponderance of evidence. |
| Vulnerable‑victim enhancement (§3A1.1(b)(1)) | Medical records showed victims with age/medical issues; Cobb knew or should have known. | Court relied only on possession of medical records without proof those records’ data were used. | Affirmed: factual finding not clearly erroneous; Cobb admitted using medical records in plea. |
| Production of unauthorized access device (§2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i)) | Duplicating/stolen identifiers on returns amounts to producing unauthorized access devices. | Using PII to file returns is not “production” of an access device. | Waived by Cobb’s withdrawal of objection; alternatively, no plain‑error relief because no controlling contrary precedent. |
| Armed‑career‑criminal designation (§4B1.4) | Cobb’s prior Florida drug convictions qualify as serious drug offenses. | One 2008 Florida conviction does not qualify. | Waived by withdrawal; alternatively foreclosed by circuit precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.) (clear‑error standard for victim counts)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (courts may rely on sentencing‑hearing evidence and PSR for loss estimation)
- United States v. Medina, 485 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (reasonableness of loss estimates in fraud cases)
- United States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir.) (attributing returns to defendant using linked addresses/IPs upheld)
- United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711 (11th Cir.) (restitution based on reasonable estimate/preponderance)
- United States v. Birge, 830 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir.) (§3A1.1(b)(1) requires knowledge that a victim was vulnerable, not proof of targeted selection)
- United States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.) (withdrawal of sentencing objections waives appellate review)
- United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (Florida drug convictions qualify as serious drug offenses for ACCA/Guidelines purposes)