United States v. Stanley Presendieu
880 F.3d 1228
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- From 2010–2014 Habib ran Kwik Stop and knowingly cashed unlawfully obtained checks (stolen Treasury checks and fraudulent tax-refund checks) for a network of co-conspirators in exchange for a cut; Habib stored scanned forged endorsements and fake IDs and cooperated with law enforcement after a 2018 search.
- Presendieu admitted in a detailed, signed seven‑page factual proffer that he obtained and brought stolen/fraudulent checks, forged endorsements, and false identifications to Habib and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
- At the Rule 11 change‑of‑plea hearing Presendieu acknowledged signing the plea agreement and factual proffer; the district court did not explicitly recite every statutory element but found his plea knowing and voluntary and sentenced him to 212 months (188 + 24 consecutive), with restitution.
- Jean pled guilty to the same two counts; the PSR attributed $193,132.53 loss to her (including ~$84,000 from co‑conspirator Pharr’s later activity), applied enhancements for sophisticated means and production of counterfeit/unauthorized access devices, denied a minor‑role reduction, and recommended guidelines of 33–41 months (plus mandatory 24 months consecutive).
- At sentencing the district court overruled Jean’s objections (loss amount scope, sophisticated‑means, access‑device production, minor role), adopted the PSR calculations, imposed a slight downward variance, and sentenced Jean to 27 months plus 24 months consecutive (total 51 months) and $73,635.95 restitution.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit: (1) affirmed Presendieu’s convictions under plain‑error review (concluding the plea colloquy plus detailed admitted proffer satisfied Rule 11 and due process), and (2) vacated and remanded Jean’s sentence—finding clear error in attributing Pharr’s 2014 losses to Jean and directing recalculation of loss to $109,000 and further fact‑finding on the minor‑role issue—while affirming the two enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Presendieu’s guilty plea (Rule 11/due process) | Presendieu: district court plainly erred by not explaining nature/elements of counts at plea colloquy, making plea constitutionally defective | Government/District Court: detailed written factual proffer (admitted by Presendieu), plea colloquy questions, and court’s observations sufficed to show he understood charges | Affirmed: no plain error; admitted proffer + colloquy satisfied Rule 11 and due process so plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether Pharr’s post‑dating conduct is part of Jean’s relevant conduct (loss amount under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3) | Jean: Pharr’s June–Oct 2014 check cashing was outside the scope of Jean’s jointly undertaken activity and not reasonably foreseeable; therefore should be excluded from loss | Government/District Court: Pharr’s activity was foreseeable and within scope of conspiracy, so losses attributable to Jean include Pharr’s checks | Vacated and remanded: clear error to include Pharr’s $84,000; on remand use $109,000 loss (Jean + Deronceler) and resentence |
| Two‑level increase for production of unauthorized/counterfeit access devices (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) and §2B1.6) | Jean: challenge applicability because she was separately convicted of aggravated identity theft and may have only used/possessed IDs, not produced them | Government: Jean procured/paid for IDs, induced production, and directed ID information—conduct fits the production definition so enhancement applies | Affirmed: enhancement proper because factual proffer shows Jean willfully induced/caused manufacture/duplication of counterfeit IDs; §2B1.6 limitation does not bar enhancement where production occurred |
| Sophisticated‑means enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(10)(C)) and minor‑role reduction (U.S.S.G. §3B1.2) | Jean: she did not intentionally engage in or cause sophisticated conduct; also argued she was less culpable and entitled to minor role reduction | Government/District Court: scheme used sophisticated measures (tax‑service companies, tailored false IDs, concealment); Jean had central involvement and negotiates shares—not a minor participant | Mixed: affirmed sophisticated‑means enhancement under 2014 guideline (amendment narrowing scope was substantive and inapplicable); vacated minor‑role denial because district court relied primarily on a single factor and must make fuller fact findings on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary and knowing)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (U.S. 1976) (defendant must receive real notice of the nature of the charge)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2002) (plain‑error standard applies to unpreserved Rule 11 challenges)
- United States v. Wiggins, 131 F.3d 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) (factual proffer can supply substance of elements in plea colloquy)
- United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (minor‑role reduction is fact‑intensive; proponent bears burden)
- United States v. Taylor, 818 F.3d 671 (11th Cir. 2016) (production enhancement applies where defendant willfully causes manufacture/duplication of access devices)