United States v. Kenvis Norwood
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23813
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Norwood pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and intentionally conspiring to commit bank fraud with multiple coconspirators.
- The scheme began October 2011 with the theft of mail from about 20 businesses in Olathe, Kansas, leading to computer-generated counterfeit checks.
- In May 2012, Norwood traveled from Atlanta to Springfield, Missouri, allied with Eggleston to recruit homeless men to cash counterfeit checks, and served in a security-like role.
- Norwood helped obtain government-issued IDs from the homeless recruits and knew those IDs would be used to print fraudulent checks.
- Police arrested Norwood and Eggleston after they cashed four checks totaling $12,321.79 and found two more uncashed checks.
- At sentencing, the district court applied two-level enhancements for sophisticated means and for unauthorized use/transfer of a means of identification, based on uncontested facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the sophisticated-means enhancements properly applied? | Norwood contends limited involvement foresees no enhanced liability. | The government argues the scheme was sufficiently sophisticated as a whole. | Yes; the enhancement reasonably applied given Norwood's knowledge and conduct. |
| Was the means-of-identification enhancement properly applied? | Norwood argues he did not produce/obtain another means of identification. | The government contends duplicating IDs onto counterfeit checks satisfies the clause. | Yes; duplication onto a new medium qualifies as producing/obtaining another means of identification. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support the enhancements given Norwood's involvement? | Norwood asserts evidence is lacking to support the enhancements. | Government contends undisputed facts in the record justify the enhancements without additional evidence. | Undisputed facts support the enhancements; no new evidence required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scott, 448 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2006) (upheld means-of-identification enhancement where IDs used to create counterfeit checks)
- United States v. Newsome, 439 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2006) (duplication/transfer of means of identification can satisfy enhancement)
- United States v. Williams, 355 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2003) (defines scope of means of identification for enhancement)
- United States v. Oates, 427 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2005) (guidance on application of identification-enhancement factors)
- United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2005) (discusses standards for evaluating enhancements at sentencing)
- United States v. Huston, 744 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2014) (sophisticated means can apply to repetitive, coordinated schemes)