United States v. Jerame Moore
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9496
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Dec. 24, 2013, Jerame Moore and three confederates traveled from Chicago and used counterfeit or unauthorized debit/credit cards at multiple Walgreens; police seized 60 unauthorized cards (25 on Moore).
- Officers determined the group had used 8 of the 60 cards; one card (not in Moore’s name) was used for $1,016.25 in purchases.
- Moore pleaded guilty to possessing at least 15 unauthorized access devices with intent to defraud; the government dismissed a conspiracy count under the plea agreement.
- The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and its commentary note 3(F)(i), attributing a minimum $500 loss per unauthorized access device, producing a total loss of $30,516.25 and a Guidelines range of 24–30 months after reductions.
- Moore objected, arguing the $500-per-card rule should apply only to cards actually used; the district court rejected this and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment plus three years’ supervised release.
- On appeal Moore challenges (1) the loss calculation under § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i) and (2) the procedural validity of imposing supervised release without first finding it necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of $500-per-card loss under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(i) | Moore: $500 should apply only to cards actually tendered/used to purchase goods | Government: $500 applies to all unauthorized access devices seized in the case | Court: Affirmed — $500 per seized unauthorized device applies; total loss $30,516.25 upheld |
| Imposition of supervised release without explicit necessity finding | Moore: District court erred by imposing supervised release without first finding it necessary | Government: (implicit) supervised release proper as imposed | Court: Vacated sentence and remanded — district court failed to make required necessity finding; must revisit supervised release consistent with controlling precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mei, 315 F.3d 788 (7th Cir.) (commentary to Guidelines is authoritative interpretive aid)
- United States v. Baker, 755 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for procedural error in supervised-release determinations)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (courts must find supervised release necessary before imposing it)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.) (guidance on supervised-release considerations at sentencing)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir.) (supervised-release procedural requirements)