United States v. Reginald Doss
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25449
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Doss organized an identity-theft scheme using stolen identities to create fake IDs; others purchased the fake information and opened accounts.
- Doss profited by reselling goods bought with those accounts; profits were distributed and some retained by Doss.
- Police stopped Doss on Sep 26, 2007; found credit cards and gift cards in others’ names and notes with a victim’s personal data.
- A search of an associated apartment uncovered documents for at least forty people, including fake licenses, SS cards, and credit cards.
- A second stop on Dec 3, 2007 yielded a fake license, another victim’s information, and three gift cards.
- Doss pled guilty to: (1) possessing with intent to use or transfer five or more IDs (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3)); (2) possessing with intent to defraud fifteen or more counterfeit/unauthorized devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3)); (3) aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)).
- PSR grouped counts 1 and 2 for sentencing and applied § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B) enhancement; Doss objected that he did not produce or traffic credit cards.
- District court held Doss trafficked in credit cards via providing information to confederates, adopted PSR’s calculation, and sentenced 78 months on counts 1–2 with a consecutive 2-year term on count 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Application Note 2 to § 2B1.6 precludes § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B) | Doss argues Note 2 precludes the enhancement. | Doss contends trafficking of means of identification is not applicable under Note 2. | Plain error; Note 2 precludes the enhancement. |
| Whether trafficking of means of identification constitutes transfer under Note 2 | Trafficking meant transfer of information to others. | Not expressly distinguishable from transfer; arguable scope. | Trafficking constitutes transfer under Note 2. |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights requiring vacatur | Enhanced range 63–78 months vs 51–63 months. | No substantial rights impact argument beyond standard error review. | Yes; sentence vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lyons, 556 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2009) (trafficking involves transfer; § 2B1.1(b)(10)(B)(i) not applicable under Note 2 to § 2B1.6)
- United States v. Jones, 551 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008) (trafficking of a means of identification involves a transfer)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review standard for sentencing issues)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework; four-part test)
- United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2005) (court’s discretion to correct sentencing error to preserve fairness)
- United States v. Johns, 732 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2013) (misapplication of enhancement affected guidelines range and rights)