United States v. Trevor Hinds
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20651
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2013 Hinds and four co-conspirators obtained ~304 counterfeit credit/debit cards embossed with the conspirators’ names and used them in multi-state fraudulent purchases; law enforcement recovered the cards after the group was stopped in Indiana.
- Hinds pled guilty to conspiracy to use counterfeit devices, possession of forged securities, and conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
- The district court sentenced Hinds to concurrent 30-month terms (bottom of guideline range) after applying a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) for production or trafficking of counterfeit access devices.
- The court also ordered restitution and two special supervised-release conditions: (1) require Hinds to pay a portion of substance-abuse treatment and testing costs (no ability-to-pay finding or contingency), and (2) authorize suspicionless searches and seizures of person, property, and computers.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed the two-level enhancement (relying on the fact the counterfeit cards were embossed with defendants’ names and other record evidence) but vacated both special conditions and remanded for re-sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Hinds' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2B1.1(b)(11)(B) enhancement (production/trafficking) was supported | No evidence Hinds produced or trafficked cards; district court only found control, not intent to traffic | Record shows production: cards were embossed with defendants’ names (designed for their use); trafficking or production suffice | Affirmed on production ground; cards’ embossed names and record evidence support enhancement |
| Whether court had authority to require Hinds to pay for substance-abuse treatment/testing | Statutes that impose payments are explicit; supervised-release statutes are silent so court lacks authority | 18 U.S.C. § 3672 authorizes courts to direct payment for community treatment/testing when funds available | Court has statutory authority but condition improperly imposed here (vacated) |
| Whether the payment condition was permissible given Hinds’ indigence | Imposing unconditional payment conflicts with court’s finding Hinds could not pay interest and that he lacked resources; no contingency or explanation | Condition is authorized and appropriate in some cases | Vacated: district court failed to tie condition to §3553(a), made no ability-to-pay finding or contingency; risk of imprisonment-for-debt concerns (remand) |
| Whether suspicionless, broad search-and-seizure special condition was permissible | Such a condition is overly broad and unconstitutional absent reasonable-suspicion requirement | Sought to justify searches based on nature of offense | Vacated: condition indistinguishable from unlawfully broad condition in Farmer; government conceded condition should be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pollock, 757 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.) (implicit findings may suffice where objective record supports them)
- United States v. Sliman, 449 F.3d 797 (7th Cir.) (co-conspirators’ foreseeable acts factor into offense level)
- United States v. Locke, 643 F.3d 235 (7th Cir.) (affirming despite limited explicit judicial findings when record supports result)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir.) (vacating unconditional payment-for-treatment condition where court made no ability-to-pay contingency)
- United States v. Farmer, 755 F.3d 849 (7th Cir.) (vacating suspicionless search condition as unlawfully broad)
- United States v. Bull, 214 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir.) (upholding payment requirement for treatment where appropriate)
- United States v. Salem, 587 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (vacating production enhancement where no evidence of who produced fraudulent items)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (conditions must be linked to offense, history, and §3553(a) purposes)