United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 26, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-11216
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEAN MARCEL TAPE, also known as Abdul Akapea,
also known as Didier Sorel, also known as
Denika Tape, also known as Jean Marcel Denika
Tape, also known as Marcel Tape, also known as
Jean Taradenika, also known as Harry Otte,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CR-167-1-L
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jean Marcel Tape pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to conspiring to present or offer false and fictitious
instruments disguised as United States Federal Reserve notes with
the intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and
514(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court imposed a six-level
adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(C) based upon the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-11216
-2-
use of “sophisticated means” in the offense and sentenced him to
nine months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of
supervised release. Tape specifically reserved his right to
appeal the imposition of a sophisticated-means adjustment, and he
presents it now before this court. The determination whether a
defendant used “sophisticated means” to engage in fraud is a
factual finding which this court reviews for clear error. See
United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340 (5th Cir. 1996).
Tape contends that the district court erred in imposing the
sentencing adjustment because the evidence reflects that Tape did
not personally engage in any sophisticated actions within the
scheme and because he admitted that he did not understand the
chemical processes used in the attempt to defraud the intended
victim. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), a conspirator is
responsible for “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of
others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal
activity.” Although Tape’s coconspirator conducted the chemical
processes used to change the “black money” and “white money” into
United States currency, Tape could reasonably foresee the use of
these actions, and his limited personal involvement does not
affect the application of the sophisticated-means adjustment.
Tape also contends that the district court committed clear
error in imposing the adjustment because the scheme was not as
complex as the intricate financial transactions found to be
“sophisticated” in other cases. Tape also notes that the scheme
No. 02-11216
-3-
was unsuccessful. According to the evidence presented at
sentencing, Secret Service chemists could not fully explain the
chemical processes used in the plan. Tape has not established
that the use of chemical processes not easily understood by
scientists constituted clear error. Consequently, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.