United States v. William Jones, Jr., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3263

Jones, owner of SAM Packaging, pled guilty to tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 after failing to pay taxes for 2006–2008.
He concealed assets and income by submitting partially redacted bank statements, failing to disclose and using bank accounts at Community America Credit Union, commingling personal and business funds, and switching to cash transactions.
Jones concealed accounts receivable by refusing to turn them over, secretly operated a new company (Mustang Innovation LLC) to continue SAM Packaging’s contracts, and used multiple EINs and a former employee’s SSN on corporate tax returns.
The probation office recommended a two-level USSG § 2T1.1(b)(2) enhancement for use of sophisticated means; the district court imposed it over Jones’s objection.
After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Jones’s total offense level produced a Guidelines range of 30–37 months; the court varied downward and sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two-level "sophisticated means" enhancement under USSG § 2T1.1(b)(2) was proper	Jones: his conduct was typical tax-evasion behavior and did not make detection notably more difficult	Government/District Court: Jones’s coordinated acts (redacted statements, hidden accounts, commingling, cash dealings, secret company, EIN misuse, refusal to bill) formed a repetitive, coordinated scheme that impeded detection	Court affirmed enhancement: conduct as a whole qualified as "sophisticated means," so district court did not clearly err

United States v. Lewis, 93 F.3d 1075 (2d Cir. 1996) (illustrative examples of sophisticated means are not exclusive)
United States v. Jenkins, 578 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2009) (sophisticated-means enhancement applies when scheme is notably more intricate than garden-variety offense)
United States v. Hance, 501 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2007) (definition and application of sophisticated-means concept)
United States v. Huston, 744 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2014) (repetitive and coordinated conduct can constitute sophistication)
United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2011) (same)
United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for factual findings on sophistication)
United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2012) (clear-error standard and review scope)
United States v. Miller, 511 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding sophisticated-means enhancement for coordinated, multi-step scheme)