United States v. Jean Baptiste Charles
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12866
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- During a traffic stop officers found ten prepaid debit cards in names other than Charles; bank records showed the cards were loaded with IRS tax refunds from fraudulent returns and Charles admitted via texts to filing returns in others’ names.
- Charles pled guilty to Count One (conspiracy to traffic/use unauthorized access devices under 18 U.S.C. §1029(a)(2) and (b)(2)) and Count Five (aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §1028A).
- The PSR increased Count One offense level by: base 6; +8 for >$70,000 loss; +2 for ≥10 victims; +2 for production/trafficking of unauthorized access devices (§2B1.1(b)(11)(B)), yielding offense level 18 (with acceptance points later reducing it to 15).
- The district court sustained the +2 "trafficking" enhancement because Charles transferred a prepaid card to a co-defendant, and sentenced Charles to 18 months on Count One and a consecutive 24 months on Count Five (§1028A mandatory two-year term).
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit vacated the Count One sentence and remanded: the court held the §2B1.1(b)(11)(B) trafficking enhancement was precluded by U.S.S.G. §2B1.6 cmt. n.2 when the defendant already received the mandatory consecutive §1028A sentence; the court left open whether a production-based enhancement applies and directed the district court to decide that issue on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne required the trafficking enhancement be submitted to a jury | Charles: Alleyne/App rendi entitles him to jury finding for facts that increase punishment | Government: Alleyne inapplicable because enhancement affected only guideline range, not statutory min/max | Court: Alleyne does not apply; judicial factfinding for advisory guidelines is permissible when it does not change statutory min/max |
| Whether §2B1.1(b)(11)(B) +2 for trafficking of an unauthorized access device could be applied given the mandatory consecutive §1028A sentence | Charles: Trafficking enhancement should not apply because the §1028A mandatory sentence already accounts for transfer/possession/use of means of identification | Government: Enhancement was proper because Charles transferred a card to a co-defendant; alternatively, the enhancement could be justified as "production" | Court: Trafficking enhancement was precluded by U.S.S.G. §2B1.6 cmt. n.2 (which forbids applying specific-offense characteristics for transfer/possession/use of a means of identification when §2B1.6 sentence is imposed); vacated Count One sentence and remanded for resentencing. Court left production issue for district court to decide on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase statutory mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory maximum is an element for the jury)
- United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2013) (§1029 convictions qualify as predicate offenses for §1028A; §2B1.6 accounts for identity-theft related conduct)
- United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2012) (district court may make judicial fact findings for advisory guidelines so long as they do not alter statutory min/max)