United States v. Laquitta S. Brackins
711 F. App'x 491
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Laquitta S. Brackins pleaded guilty to 15 counts (conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud) for a scheme filing false insurance claims to obtain >100 electronic devices (~$545 average value).
- District Court calculated intended losses between $1,500,000 and $3,500,000 and applied a 16‑level Guidelines increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I).
- The court included AT&T deductibles in loss calculation but excluded Verizon deductibles based on differing billing practices and evidence about whether Brackins paid them.
- The District Court applied a 4‑level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), finding Brackins recruited and directed participants (crediting co‑conspirator Amanda Barnes’s testimony).
- The court applied a 2‑level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on findings that Brackins destroyed hard drives and directed others to delete data to conceal the fraud.
- Brackins appealed challenging the loss calculation (deductibles and speculative intended loss), the leadership enhancement, and the obstruction enhancement (attacking Barnes’s credibility).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brackins) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation — inclusion of deductibles and intended loss magnitude | District Court erred by including deductibles and relying on speculative intended losses | Government presented specific, reasonable estimates; AT&T deductibles were charged post‑delivery and unpaid, so they count; intended loss may be used | Affirmed — no clear error: intended loss properly used; AT&T deductibles reasonably included, Verizon deductibles excluded appropriately |
| Leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) | Brackins did not exercise decision‑making, recruit, lead, or control others | Barnes and other evidence showed Brackins recruited, directed participants, and took a large share of proceeds | Affirmed — no clear error: factors supported a 4‑level enhancement |
| Obstruction enhancement under § 3C1.1 | Credibility of Barnes undermines finding that Brackins destroyed/concealed evidence | Court credited Barnes’s testimony that Brackins destroyed hard drives and directed deletions | Affirmed — no clear error: district court credibility determination stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (clear‑error standard for loss and need for reasonable loss estimate)
- United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878 (11th Cir. 2009) (clear‑error standard explained)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court deference on loss findings)
- United States v. Menichino, 989 F.2d 438 (11th Cir. 1993) (intended loss may be used even if no actual loss occurred)
- United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard for § 3B1.1 role‑in‑offense determinations)
- United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (government burden to prove leadership by preponderance)
- United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2009) (§ 3B1.1 factors are considerations; not all must be present)
- United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (multiple leaders can qualify under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Carabello, 595 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (recruiting/instructing accomplices supports leadership enhancement)
- United States v. Ramirez‑Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing obstruction factual findings)