UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH MICHAEL ANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-328)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 24, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Michael Anders pled guilty to two counts of credit
card fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029(a)(2), (c)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp.
2003). He was sentenced to a term of fifty-four months imprisonment
and ordered to pay $308,000 in restitution to Lowe’s Home
Improvement Warehouse. Anders contends on appeal that the district
court erred by giving him a two-level sentencing enhancement for
relocating his fraudulent scheme to another jurisdiction to evade
law enforcement officials. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
2B1.1(b)(8)(A) (2002). We affirm.
Anders began his fraud in Ohio, where he lived. He used
fraudulently obtained business contractor account numbers to
purchase construction tools and equipment from Lowe’s stores, which
he then sold to builders and contractors, representing that he was
employed by the manufacturer to sell directly from the factory.
After he defrauded a series of stores in Ohio, he began making
trips to other states to conduct the same fraud. Anders sometimes
made multiple purchases from the same store during Lowe’s thirty-
day billing cycle for commercial accounts, but he moved out of each
new area before the account owners could notice the fraudulent
activity. He usually transported the merchandise in a rented
trailer and delivered it to a number of steady customers.
Anders argues that the enhancement for relocating to another
jurisdiction to evade law enforcement does not apply in his case
2
because he never changed his residence or used a disguise. Neither
of these factors is relevant to the court’s determination. He also
claims the enhancement does not apply because the amendment that
added the enhancement was intended to punish telemarketing fraud.
However, he acknowledges that the enhancement for “sophisticated
concealment” was not limited to telemarketing fraud. See USSG App.
C, amend. 577; see also United States v. Singh, 291 F.3d 756, 761
(11th Cir. 2002) (“Sentencing Commission also noted that Amendment
577 may apply to criminal conduct in connection with fraudulent
schemes perpetrated by means other than telemarketing fraud.”). We
find no error in the district court’s determination that the
enhancement applied.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3