[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 31, 2008
No. 08-10688
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 06-00507-CR-TCB-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
JASON SLAUGHTER,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 31, 2008)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Slaughter appeals his 120-month sentence for bank fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. On appeal, Slaughter argues that the district court erred by
imposing a four-level increase for his role in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(a). He argues that the increase was improper because his criminal activity
did not involve “five or more participants” nor was not “otherwise extensive.”
We review for clear error a district court’s determination of a defendant’s
role in the offense. United States v. DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir.) (en
banc). Section 3B1.1(a) provides for a four-level enhancement if a “defendant
was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more
participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
An “otherwise extensive” operation does not require a set number of
criminally responsible participants. United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1045
(11th Cir. 1994). “Although this [C]ircuit does not employ a precise definition for
the ‘otherwise extensive’ standard, there are a number of factors relevant to the
extensiveness determination, including the length and scope of the criminal
activity, as well as the number of persons involved. Id. at 1046. “In assessing
whether an organization is ‘otherwise extensive,’ all persons involved during the
course of the entire offense are to be considered. Thus, a fraud that involved only
three participants but used the unknowing services of many outsiders could be
2
considered extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.3. In United States v. Rodriguez,
981 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1993) (footnote omitted), we held that the facts
established that a defendant was involved in an “otherwise extensive” criminal
activity when the defendant “was organizing a drug transaction that extended from
Columbia to Florida to Boston to New York, and which included the purchase and
street distribution of 100 kilos of cocaine worth $350,000 in the wholesale
market.” See also United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1198 (11th Cir. 2006)
(holding that the district court clearly erred by not finding that a criminal activity
involving “seven corporations, numerous straw owners, Medicare reimbursements
of over $ 15 million, and repeated failure to disclose related party status over a
seven-year period” was “otherwise extensive.”).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs of the parties, we
discern no reversible error. Because Slaughter caused a principal loss of over $5.5
million and involved many knowing and unknowing individuals in his criminal
activity, the district court did not err in finding that he was a leader and organizer
of a criminal activity that was “extensive.”
Moreover, in United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006), we
held that it was unnecessary to decide an enhancement issue where the district
court made clear that even if its interpretation and application of the sentencing
3
guidelines were wrong, it would still impose the same sentence. 470 F.3d at
1348–49. In this case, the district court stated that, even if it were wrong about the
enhancement, it would impose the same sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4