United States v. Tanganica Corbett
921 F.3d 1032
11th Cir.2019Background
- Corbett and coworker Weaver, employees at Florida Hospital, accessed and sold patient "face sheets" containing names, DOB, SSNs, and insurance data from July 2012–July 2013; Corbett participated after July 28, 2013 and received small payments.
- Indicted and pleaded guilty to conspiracy and related counts for obtaining/disclosing individually identifiable health information; sentencing used the 2016 Guidelines.
- Probation officer calculated offense level 22 after applying: (a) +2 for offense involving 10 or more victims based on ~1,700 compromised means of identification; and (b) +10 for loss between $150,000 and $250,000 based on $232,068.64 in hospital costs for identifying/notifying patients.
- Corbett timely objected to the loss calculation (on various grounds) and sought acceptance-of-responsibility credit; she raised only a limited objection to the victims enhancement (arguing few had identifiable financial harm) and did not argue below that mere transfer was not “use.”
- District court overruled the victims objection (reasoning anyone whose information was stolen is a victim), accepted responsibility, imposed a downward variance and sentenced Corbett to 12 months and one day; Corbett appealed, raising plain-error review for unpreserved arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Corbett) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all individuals whose identifying information was stolen count as “victims” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (ten-or-more-victims enhancement) | Court should not count mere transfers/sales as “use”; only individuals whose means of identification were actually used (e.g., to obtain fraudulent credit) qualify as victims | The sale/transfer of identifying information suffices as "use"; indictment’s stated purpose (enrichment by selling info) shows use | Reversed: plain error. Under United States v. Hall, mere sale/transfer is not "use." The district court erred in counting all 1,700+ individuals as victims; remand for resentencing and opportunity for government to prove ≥10 victims by evidence of actual use. |
| Whether hospital remediation costs ($232,068.64) properly counted as "loss" for a +10 enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 | Hospital costs were not reasonably foreseeable or should be excluded as costs incurred primarily to aid the government; alternatively, limit to Corbett’s relevant-conduct period | Probation report facts (which Corbett did not dispute) established the $232k loss; such remediation costs are reasonably foreseeable and not excluded as primarily investigative costs | Affirmed: no plain error. Corbett admitted the PSR facts and failed to preserve specific legal/factual challenges (including a 1B1.3 relevant-conduct argument). The enhancement for $232,068.64 stands absent preserved factual dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hall, 704 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013) (held that mere sale/transfer of identifying information is not the "use" of a means of identification for § 2B1.1 victim-counting)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error framework for Guidelines range errors and when an incorrect Guidelines range establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for reasonableness of sentences and procedural requirements)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (clarified when a forfeited Guidelines error warrants correction to preserve fairness/integrity of proceedings)
- United States v. Sammour, 816 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2016) (rejecting interpretation that "used" includes mere transfer without more)