United States v. Kamali Rives
683 F. App'x 806
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rives pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, multiple counts of bank fraud and access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft arising from a scheme that stole checks from a Bank of America lockbox, deposited them into fraudulent accounts, and used stolen check data to access victims’ accounts.
- PSR attributed an intended loss of $2,024,865.29 to Rives, triggering a 16‑level U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) enhancement; loss comprised deposited checks, corporate and personal checks recovered from hotel rooms, and identity‑theft losses tied to stolen lockbox checks.
- At sentencing Postal Inspector Sims testified and introduced spreadsheets tying the checks and identity‑theft victims to Rives via texts, statements, surveillance, and a phone number provided by a depositor.
- Rives objected, arguing he should only be held accountable for checks he personally deposited or explicitly induced others to steal (contested checks totaled $482,745.15).
- The district court found the scheme was a single, jointly undertaken criminal activity and that the full intended loss was reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of the conspiracy; it applied the 16‑level enhancement and imposed a total 234‑month sentence (including a consecutive 24‑month mandatory minimum).
- On appeal Rives challenged only the attribution of the full loss amount; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for clear error and affirmed, also holding any miscalculation would be harmless because the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court clearly erred in attributing the full intended loss to Rives for guideline calculations | Gov't: loss attributable to Rives because checks and identity‑theft losses were within scope, in furtherance, and reasonably foreseeable as part of one scheme | Rives: accountable only for checks he personally deposited or induced others to steal; contested checks not his conduct | Court: affirmed—evidence supported attribution under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; any error would be harmless because court would impose same 234‑month sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and requirement that loss estimate be supported by reliable specific evidence)
- United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2016) (district court may rely on trial evidence, undisputed PSR statements, or sentencing hearing evidence for loss calculation)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (definition of reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm for intended‑loss analysis)
- United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2009) (guideline miscalculation at sentencing is harmless if the court states it would have imposed the same sentence regardless)