United States v. Zhaofa Wang
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3834
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wang participated in a high-volume false document conspiracy in Illinois, with an estimated 7,000 forged documents involved.
- Conspiracy members altered PRC passports and Social Security documents, created Illinois residency proofs, and obtained state IDs or driver’s licenses for clients.
- Wang’s role spanned no later than 2008 to February 2009, linking manufacturers to customers and handling transport, payments, and passport reuse.
- Wang pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and aggravated identity theft, admitting involvement with other named conspirators including Zhang and Yonghui Wang.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a nine-level increase under § 2L2.1(b)(2) for 100+ documents and denied a minor-participant reduction.
- The district court’s sentence consisted of 37 months for conspiracy plus 24 months consecutive for aggravated identity theft; Wang appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nine-level increase for 100+ documents was proper | Wang argues limited awareness of scope; not 100+ documents. | Wang contends only 6–24 documents should be attributed to him. | Nine-level increase upheld; court found reasonably foreseeable and within scope. |
| Whether the conspiracy’s scope and foreseeability were properly determined | Wang asserts lack of knowledge of overall scope. | Wang argues foreseeability is insufficient to justify 100+ documents. | District court properly found substantial commitment and foreseeability. |
| Whether the minor-participant reduction was correctly denied | Wang contends he was not substantially less culpable. | Wang asserts reduced role warrants 3B1.2(b). | denial of minor-participant reduction affirmed; Wang was an active, essential participant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salem, 657 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (defines scope and foreseeability for jointly undertaken criminal activity)
- United States v. Soto-Piedra, 525 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2008) (remanding where defendant did not assist or agree to promote action)
- United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2011) (foreseeability not equal to actual knowledge)
- United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (substantial commitment standard for foreseeability)
- United States v. Zarnes, 33 F.3d 1454 (7th Cir. 1994) (defining substantial commitment in conspiracy)
- United States v. McKee, 389 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (essential component theory no automatic reduction for others' greater involvement)