NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1
United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱȱ60604
ArguedȱNovemberȱ10,ȱ2010 DecidedȱDecemberȱ23,ȱ2010
Before
RICHARDȱD.ȱCUDAHY,ȱCircuitȱJudge
DANIELȱA.ȱMANION,ȱCircuitȱJudge
DIANEȱS.ȱSYKES,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ10Ȭ1518
UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict PlaintiffȬAppellee, CourtȱforȱtheȱEasternȱDistrictȱofȱWisconsin.
v. No.ȱ09ȱCRȱ84
EDWARDȱBOSIRE,ȱ CharlesȱN.ȱClevert,ȱJr., DefendantȬAppellant. ChiefȱJudge.
OȱRȱDȱEȱR
EdwardȱBosireȱpleadedȱguiltyȱtoȱmailȱfraudȱandȱwasȱsentencedȱtoȱ39ȱmonths’ imprisonment.ȱȱOnȱappealȱheȱarguesȱthatȱheȱshouldȱhaveȱreceivedȱaȱtwoȬlevelȱreductionȱasȱa minorȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱclearlyȱerrȱinȱrefusingȱthis reduction,ȱweȱaffirmȱtheȱjudgment.
EdwardȱBosireȱandȱhisȱwife,ȱAngelaȱMartinȱMulu,ȱbothȱasylumȱrefugeesȱfromȱKenya, engagedȱinȱaȱfourȬyearȱfraudȱschemeȱthatȱtargetedȱseveralȱMidwestȱreligiousȱcommunities.ȱ Theȱcoupleȱrepresentedȱthemselvesȱasȱsiblingsȱandȱtoldȱtheirȱvictimsȱthatȱtheyȱwere homelessȱillegalȱimmigrantsȱsufferingȱfromȱseriousȱmedicalȱconditionsȱincludingȱmalaria andȱtuberculosis,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱsignificantȱlegalȱbillsȱattendantȱtoȱtheirȱimmigration status.ȱȱDuringȱtheȱfourȬyearȱperiodȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱindictment,ȱtheȱcoupleȱnettedȱoverȱ$1.1 millionȱinȱproceeds,ȱincludingȱ$815,000ȱfromȱtheȱDiscalcedȱCarmeliteȱNunsȱofȱPewaukee,
No.ȱ10Ȭ1518 Pageȱ2
Wisconsin.ȱȱThoughȱtheȱcoupleȱsaidȱtheyȱneededȱtheȱfundsȱforȱlegalȱandȱmedicalȱbillsȱand tuition,ȱtheyȱusedȱtheȱmoneyȱtoȱmaintainȱtwoȱapartmentsȱandȱgambledȱawayȱnearlyȱ$1 million.
InȱMarchȱ2009,ȱtheȱcoupleȱwasȱchargedȱwithȱmailȱfraudȱunderȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1341. Bosireȱpleadedȱguiltyȱpursuantȱtoȱaȱwrittenȱpleaȱagreement,ȱandȱconcededȱthatȱtheȱrelevant conductȱatȱsentencingȱshouldȱincludeȱtheȱtotalȱproceedsȱofȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱTheȱprobationȱofficer setȱaȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ7,ȱseeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(a)(1),ȱandȱaddedȱ14ȱlevelsȱafterȱconcluding thatȱtheȱlossȱwasȱmoreȱthanȱ$400,000ȱbutȱlessȱthanȱ$1ȱmillion,ȱseeȱid.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(b)(1)(H).ȱȱȱThe probationȱofficerȱalsoȱaddedȱtwoȱlevelsȱbecauseȱtheȱoffenseȱinvolvedȱ10ȱorȱmoreȱvictims, seeȱid.ȱ§ȱ2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(1),ȱandȱsubtractedȱthreeȱlevelsȱforȱacceptanceȱofȱresponsibility, seeȱid.ȱ§ȱ3E1.1.ȱȱBosire’sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ20ȱandȱcriminalȱhistoryȱcategoryȱofȱIȱyieldedȱan imprisonmentȱrangeȱofȱ33ȱtoȱ41ȱmonths.
Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱpresentenceȱreportȱandȱagainȱatȱsentencing,ȱdefenseȱcounsel arguedȱthatȱBosireȱmeritedȱanȱadditionalȱtwoȬlevelȱreductionȱunderȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2(b)ȱasȱa minorȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱCounselȱarguedȱthatȱBosireȱhadȱfarȱlessȱcontactȱwithȱthe victimsȱthanȱMartinȱMulu,ȱpointingȱtoȱseveralȱvictimȱstatementsȱthatȱcitedȱnoȱcontactȱwith Bosire.ȱȱCounselȱalsoȱmaintainedȱthatȱBosireȱwasȱjustȱaȱ“prop”ȱorȱ“driver,”ȱandȱthatȱheȱoften remainedȱinȱtheȱcarȱwhileȱMartinȱMuluȱtalkedȱtoȱtheȱvictims.ȱȱFinally,ȱheȱarguedȱthatȱBosire hadȱlessȱthanȱfullȱknowledgeȱaboutȱMartinȱMulu’sȱinteractionsȱwithȱtheȱvictimsȱbecauseȱthe coupleȱmaintainedȱseparateȱresidencesȱandȱwereȱoftenȱapartȱwhileȱBosireȱattendedȱclasses andȱworkedȱasȱaȱtruckȱdriver.
Theȱdistrictȱcourtȱrejectedȱtheseȱarguments,ȱreasoningȱthatȱbyȱbeingȱpresentȱbut stayingȱinȱtheȱcarȱBosireȱfacilitatedȱMartinȱMulu’sȱstoryȱthatȱheȱwasȱinȱillȱhealth.ȱȱTheȱcourt alsoȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱfraudȱhadȱspannedȱfourȱyears,ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱindicationȱthatȱBosireȱwas notȱfullyȱawareȱofȱwhatȱwasȱgoingȱonȱorȱthatȱheȱhadȱforegoneȱtheȱbenefitsȱofȱtheȱfraud,ȱand thereȱwasȱnoȱindicationȱthatȱheȱhadȱtriedȱtoȱstopȱtheȱfraud.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱadoptedȱthe probationȱofficer’sȱproposedȱfindings,ȱsentencedȱBosireȱtoȱ39ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment,ȱand assignedȱhimȱjointȱliabilityȱforȱrestitutionȱtotalingȱoverȱ$980,000.
OnȱappealȱBosireȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerredȱwhenȱitȱdeclinedȱtoȱgrantȱhimȱa minorȬroleȱreduction,ȱrenewingȱhisȱargumentsȱbothȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱmereȱ“prop”ȱinȱtheȱfraud andȱneitherȱnecessaryȱnorȱessentialȱtoȱtheȱfraud’sȱsuccess.ȱȱToȱmeritȱtheȱreduction,ȱBosire hadȱtoȱshowȱbyȱaȱpreponderanceȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱthatȱheȱwasȱsubstantiallyȱlessȱculpableȱthan theȱaverageȱparticipantȱinȱtheȱscheme.ȱȱSeeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2(b),ȱcmt.ȱn.3(A);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv. Doe,ȱ613ȱF.3dȱ681,ȱ687ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2010).ȱȱWeȱreviewȱforȱclearȱerrorȱtheȱfactualȱfindings underlyingȱaȱsentencingȱcourt’sȱdenialȱofȱaȱmitigatingȬroleȱadjustment.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv. PanaiguaȬVerdugo,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ722,ȱ724ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).
No.ȱ10Ȭ1518 Pageȱ3
ButȱBosireȱprovidedȱnoȱevidenceȱatȱsentencingȱinȱsupportȱofȱhisȱargument.ȱȱNorȱdid heȱintroduceȱanyȱevidenceȱchallengingȱtheȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱinformationȱcontainedȱinȱthe presentenceȱreport.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHeckel,ȱ570ȱF.3dȱ791,ȱ795ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009)ȱ(statingȱthatȱa defendantȱcannotȱchallengeȱaȱpresentenceȱreportȱbyȱmakingȱaȱ“bareȱdenial”ȱofȱitsȱaccuracy); seeȱalsoȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHankton,ȱ432ȱF.3dȱ779,ȱ790ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005).ȱȱTheȱevidenceȱatȱsentencing showedȱthatȱBosireȱengagedȱinȱaȱfourȬyearȱschemeȱwithȱMartinȱMuluȱtoȱdefraudȱaȱbroad arrayȱofȱreligiousȱgroupsȱandȱpersons.ȱȱHeȱalsoȱtookȱseveralȱstepsȱtoȱassistȱinȱtheȱfraud,ȱby receivingȱandȱcashingȱchecksȱonȱatȱleastȱoneȱoccasionȱandȱbyȱdrivingȱMartinȱMuluȱtoȱvisit prospectiveȱandȱongoingȱvictims.ȱȱAndȱthoughȱheȱdisputesȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱbenefitȱheȱreaped fromȱtheȱfraud,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱheȱdidȱbenefit—heȱadmittedȱthatȱheȱfrequentlyȱgambledȱwith someȱofȱtheȱproceedsȱandȱspentȱtheȱrest.ȱȱHeȱalsoȱfailedȱtoȱdoȱanythingȱtoȱstopȱtheȱfraud.ȱ Moreover,ȱBosireȱadmittedȱthatȱheȱassistedȱbothȱinȱcontactingȱandȱcontinuingȱtoȱdefraudȱthe Carmelites,ȱwhoseȱlossȱconstitutedȱtheȱbulkȱofȱtheȱmoneyȱtaken.
NorȱcanȱBosireȱdisavowȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱfullȱscheme.ȱȱHeȱacknowledgedȱinȱhisȱplea agreementȱthatȱtheȱfullȱproceedsȱofȱtheȱfraudȱwereȱrelevantȱconductȱforȱsentencing purposes.ȱȱItȱisȱnotȱclearȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱifȱBosireȱhimselfȱspokeȱtoȱanyȱvictims,ȱbutȱhis absenceȱadvancedȱtheȱcouple’sȱstoryȱthatȱheȱwasȱ“tooȱsick”ȱtoȱmeetȱwithȱvictims.ȱȱAnd thoughȱBosireȱarguesȱthatȱheȱhadȱ“lesserȱknowledge”ȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱnotȱpresentȱforȱallȱthe meetings,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱcreditedȱMartinȱMulu’sȱpleaȬhearingȱtestimonyȱthatȱthereȱwere “noȱsecrets”ȱbetweenȱtheȱcouple;ȱitȱneedȱnotȱhaveȱcreditedȱBosire’sȱunswornȱallocutionȱto theȱcontrary,ȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ3B1.2,ȱcmt.ȱn.3(C);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHoward,ȱ454ȱF.3dȱ700,ȱ703ȱ(7thȱCir. 2006).