United States v. Manuel Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299

Rodriguez owned and operated multiple companies (2003–2007) selling coffee and vending machines and solicited investors via internet ads.
Sales materials and salespeople promised specific daily profits, quick recoupment, expert location specialists using market analytics, technical support, and full refunds.
Many buyers received late, nonworking, or costly machines placed in poor locations; none recouped investments and many received no refunds or support.
Rodriguez supplied fake references, concealed prior enforcement actions and bankruptcies by creating new companies (including listing his mother as CEO), and continued the scheme after a Maryland cease-and-desist.
Indicted on conspiracy and wire-fraud counts; convicted after trial. At sentencing the government sought a 4-level Guidelines enhancement for 50+ victims based on a government summary chart and 42 affidavits; the district court applied the 4-level increase.

Issue	Government's Argument	Rodriguez's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and wire fraud	Evidence shows Rodriguez knowingly made material misrepresentations and concealments to defraud investors, not mere puffery	Statements were mere puffing; risk was disclosed; insufficient proof of intentional scheme	Affirmed — a reasonable jury could find material misrepresentations and concealments beyond puffery, supporting convictions
Sentencing enhancement for number of victims (USSG §2B1.1(b)(2))	Proffered summary chart and 42 victim affidavits establish over 50 victims, justifying a 4‑level enhancement	Chart was unauthenticated hearsay/unsupported; government failed to meet its burden to prove 50+ victims	Reversed as to 4‑level enhancement. Clear error — government failed to prove >50 victims; court remanded for resentencing with 2‑level enhancement (10+ victims)

United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of wire fraud require scheme to defraud and use of wires)
United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2009) (conspiracy requires knowledge of and willful joining in scheme to defraud)
United States v. Martinelli, 454 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing unlawful misrepresentations from nonactionable puffery)
United States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1999) (officer involvement and deceptive corporate materials can show scheme to defraud)
United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882 (11th Cir. 1997) (courts must not speculate when finding facts that increase sentence)
United States v. Lawrence, 47 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (government bears burden to establish disputed sentencing facts by preponderance)
United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2013) (government representations alone insufficient to prove victim counts at sentencing)
United States v. Zlatogur, 271 F.3d 1025 (11th Cir. 2001) (reliable hearsay may be considered at sentencing when sufficiently reliable)
United States v. Foley, 508 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and sentencing factual findings)