United States v. Milton Minter
17-10424
| 11th Cir. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Milton Minter pled guilty to theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(2)) after a scheme to cash stolen/falsified U.S. Treasury checks.
- PSR attributed $4,890,080.93 loss to Minter and applied an 18-level enhancement; resulting total offense level produced a Guidelines range of 168–210 months plus a mandatory consecutive 24 months for identity theft.
- At sentencing, testimony showed ~6,000 checks cashed in the scheme (> $11 million total) and ~$4.8 million cashed before Minter’s arrest; testimony indicated > $250,000 of checks used variations of Minter’s SSN; Minter testified he personally cashed $150,000–$200,000.
- Defense counsel advocated that the loss attributable to Minter was between $250,000 and $550,000, corresponding to a 12-level enhancement; the district court initially stated a 14-level enhancement but accepted defense counsel’s correction and applied a 12-level enhancement (offense level 22) producing a guideline range of 77–96 months.
- The court sentenced Minter to 96 months on the theft count plus a consecutive 24 months on the identity-theft count (total 120 months) and imposed a $75,000 fine; Minter appealed contesting the enhancement level and the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court plainly erred by applying a 12-level loss enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) (loss > $250,000) | Gov: loss attributable to Minter justified a 12-level (or larger) enhancement based on evidence that > $250,000 in checks used his SSN variants and broader scheme losses | Minter: court said the loss was "$250,000" (argues that implies exactly $250,000, which would trigger only the 10-level enhancement for > $150,000) | Court: Defendant invited the error by advocating the $250k–$500k range and affirmatively accepting the Guidelines calculation; invited-error doctrine bars review, so enhancement affirmed |
| Whether imposition of $75,000 fine was erroneous given inability to pay | N/A (government supported fine) | Minter: lacks ability to pay; PSR indicated no assets and low past wages | Court: Reviewed for plain error; record (Minter’s admissions of having cashed $150k–$200k, work history, earning capacity) supports ability to pay; no manifest injustice, fine affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (invited-error doctrine precludes plain-error review when a party induced the error)
- United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2006) (invited-error doctrine applied where defendant requested the sentence component challenged on appeal)
- United States v. Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 2012) (failure to object at sentencing does not always trigger invited-error bar)
- United States v. Lombardo, 35 F.3d 526 (11th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for fines is clear error when properly preserved)
- United States v. Hernandez, 160 F.3d 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (district court need not make explicit findings on fine factors if record shows consideration; affirming fine where record suggested ability to pay)
- United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (elements required to establish plain error)