United States v. Richard Thornton, 16-5429

Background

Between March 2014 and February 2015, Thornton, Crane, and Tatum participated in a multi‑state bank‑fraud conspiracy that used stolen business mail to create counterfeit checks and recruit cashers, producing ~1,400 checks and nearly $3 million in intended loss.
All three pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud; Thornton and Tatum also faced additional counts but appealed only sentencing issues.
District court imposed within‑Guidelines sentences: Thornton 136 months, Crane 80 months, Tatum 66 months; each appealed.
On appeal the defendants challenged four sentencing determinations: (1) a 2‑level USSG §2B1.1(b)(11)(C) “means‑of‑identification” enhancement; (2) a 2‑level §2B1.1(b)(10)(A) relocation enhancement; (3) the district court’s intended loss calculation; and (4) denial of a downward variance based on the economic‑reality principle.
The district court applied the means‑of‑identification enhancement based on theft and duplication of a stolen personal check (name and routing/account numbers) and applied the relocation enhancement because the conspirators moved the scheme town‑to‑town to avoid detection.
After an evidentiary hearing the court attributed intended loss based on a VersaCheck ledger (~1,416 printed checks totaling ≈$2.98 million) and denied a downward variance, finding the scheme was successful (not obviously doomed to fail).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Means‑of‑identification enhancement (USSG §2B1.1(b)(11)(C))	Enhancement improperly applied because use of an actual person’s ID was limited and the enhancement targets “breeding” identity crimes	Theft/duplication of an actual personal check (name, account/routing) produced counterfeit checks; plain text of "involve" covers even limited inclusion	Affirmed: enhancement applies where a stolen means of identification is duplicated onto counterfeit checks; no substantiality requirement and prior circuits support application
Relocation enhancement (USSG §2B1.1(b)(10)(A))	"Relocate" should imply a fixed home base moved; scheme’s travel was merely a method of operation, not relocation to evade law enforcement	Scheme repeatedly moved operations town‑to‑town specifically to cash checks then leave to avoid detection; relocation need not be permanent or based on a specific arrest threat	Affirmed: relocation enhancement properly applied because moving jurisdictions to avoid detection was central to the conspiracy
Intended loss calculation	VersaCheck ledger overstates intended loss because not every printed check was intended to be cashed; court should use a formula based on confirmed cashings	Ledger, corroborated by testimony and documents, reasonably reflects the conspirators’ intent; printed checks were distributed to cashers with intent to cash more if successful	Affirmed: district court’s evidentiary findings were not clearly erroneous; intended loss may be estimated reasonably based on ledger and corroboration
Downward variance / economic‑reality principle	Disparity between Crane’s intended loss and actual loss warrants a downward variance; scheme was largely unsuccessful for him	Court found the scheme was successful, not obviously doomed to fail, so economic‑reality departure is unwarranted; within‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying variance; economic‑reality principle inapplicable because losses were not highly improbable

Key Cases Cited

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption that within‑Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable)
United States v. Williams, 355 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 2003) (discussion of identity "breeding" offenses)
United States v. McBride, 362 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2004) (economic‑reality principle and departure when ambitious scheme was obviously doomed)
United States v. Jackson, 635 F.3d 205 (6th Cir. 2011) (Guidelines interpretation principles)
United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (loss calculation standards and deference to district court estimates)
United States v. Jordan, 544 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2008) (applying economic‑reality principle boundaries)
United States v. Norwood, 774 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2014) (duplicating bank account numbers onto counterfeit checks falls within "produce")
United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005) (means‑of‑identification enhancement not limited to "breeding" conduct)
United States v. Newsome, 439 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding enhancement where original ID duplicated onto other medium)
United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2004) (similar application of means‑of‑identification enhancement)