United States v. Xavier Taylor
818 F.3d 671
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Taylor used stolen identities to add himself as an authorized user on victims’ preexisting credit-card accounts and to obtain new cards from banks, then activated and used those cards to make fraudulent purchases.
- Secret Service agents searched Taylor’s home and seized ~33 credit cards linked to victims; Taylor pleaded guilty to trafficking in unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2)) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)).
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) for "production" of unauthorized access devices and imposed concurrent Guidelines time plus a mandatory consecutive 2-year § 1028A term (total 61 months). Taylor appealed the production enhancement.
- The appeal presented two main legal questions: (1) whether § 2B1.6 (which limits enhancements when a defendant is convicted under § 1028A) bars a § 2B1.1 production enhancement; and (2) whether causing an innocent third party (banks) to produce credit cards can qualify as ‘‘production’’ under § 2B1.1.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the Guideline interpretation and affirmed: § 2B1.6 does not categorically bar a § 2B1.1 production enhancement in § 1028A cases, and willfully causing an innocent third party to produce fraudulent access devices qualifies as "production."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2B1.6 precludes a § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) production enhancement when the defendant is also convicted under § 1028A | Government: § 2B1.6 only bars enhancements tied to transfer/possession/use; production is distinct and may be applied | Taylor: § 2B1.6 bars any § 2B1.1 enhancement when also convicted under § 1028A (to avoid double counting) | Held: § 2B1.6 does not bar a production enhancement—production is distinct from mere transfer/possession/use and may be applied if proven by a preponderance of evidence |
| Whether ‘‘production’’ under § 2B1.1 includes willfully causing an innocent third party to produce an access device | Government: "Production" includes manufacture, alteration, duplication, or willfully causing/inducing such acts by third parties | Taylor: Production requires first‑hand creation or use of co‑conspirator manufacturers; procuring devices from innocent parties isn’t production | Held: "Production" includes willfully causing or inducing an innocent third party to produce unauthorized access devices; the Guidelines’ definition plus § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) supports this |
| Whether district court erred applying the production enhancement to Taylor given the facts (banks issued cards) | Government: Taylor induced banks to issue tailor‑made fraudulent cards (bearing his name); that conduct satisfies production | Taylor: Banks, not Taylor, physically produced the cards; thus no production by Taylor | Held: No error—the record shows Taylor willfully caused banks to produce cards bearing his name, supporting the enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing production from transfer/possession/use for § 2B1.6 purposes)
- United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir.) (trafficking prong equated with transfer; remanded to evaluate production separately)
- United States v. Jones, 551 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.) (production enhancement applied where defendant altered a counterfeit driver’s license to make it usable)
- United States v. Hinds, 770 F.3d 658 (7th Cir.) (production enhancement applied where cards were embossed/designed for defendant’s use)
- United States v. Salem, 587 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.) (production enhancement improper where there was no evidence who produced or manufactured the fraudulent materials)