Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13365
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00278-WTM-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD LOUIS WILLIAMS,
a.k.a. Ace,
a.k.a. Ace Bouvier,
a.k.a. Taz,
a.k.a. Akashi Iman,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 19, 2013)
Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 2 of 6
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty, Richard Louis Williams appeals his 37-month
sentence for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Defendant Williams’s
offense involved using stolen rewards points from loyalty programs, such as Delta
Airlines SkyMiles, American Airlines AAdvantage Program and Hilton Hotel’s
HHonor Program, to purchase airline tickets, hotel rooms and merchandise. On
appeal, Defendant Williams argues that the district court erred in: (1) finding a
total loss amount of $46,773.56, which supported a six-level increase in his offense
level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D); (2) applying a two-level increase for
use of sophisticated means, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); and (3)
denying Williams a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). After review, we affirm.
The district court did not clearly err when it found that Defendant
Williams’s offense resulted in a total loss of $46,733.56 and imposed
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D)’s enhancement of six levels when a loss is greater than $30,000
but less than $70,000. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D). At sentencing, Defendant
Williams did not object to some of the fraudulent purchases (12 flights, 2 hotel
stays and 16 merchandise deliveries) the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”)
attributed to him, which totaled $24,744 in losses. Furthermore, while the district
2
Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 3 of 6
court heard evidence of a larger conspiracy to fraudulently acquire and use
frequent flyer and hotel loyalty points resulting in losses of over $400,000, the
district court held Defendant Williams accountable only for those losses for which
the government presented evidence showing links to Williams. Specifically, the
government’s evidence tying loss amounts of $46,733.56 (listed in the PSI) to
Defendant Williams included the following: (1) the majority of the airline tickets
and hotel rooms redeemed with the fraudulently acquired points were in
Williams’s own name or a slight variation thereof, and government-issued
identification would have been required to redeem the tickets and bookings; (2)
witnesses told investigators that Williams redeemed some of the disputed airline
tickets and merchandise; and (3) many of the disputed purchases were linked
through common email addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers and mailing
addresses to other purchases Williams admitted.
Given this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the
government had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that at least $30,000 in
losses were attributable to Defendant Williams. See United States v. Renick, 273
F.3d 1009, 1025 (11th Cir. 2001) (providing that, upon challenge, the government
must prove the loss amount with reliable and specific evidence). That some of the
government’s evidence was circumstantial does not render the district court’s loss
estimation unreasonable or speculative. See United States v. Dominguez, 109 F.3d
3
Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 4 of 6
675, 676 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that although the district court must not
speculate as to the existence of a fact that would permit a more severe sentence, it
may make a reasonable estimate of the loss involved); see also U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1,
cmt. n.3(C). Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the six-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D).
Nor did the district court clearly err in finding that Defendant Williams’s
fraud involved sophisticated means and thus applying U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)’s two-level enhancement. The PSI’s undisputed facts
established that; (1) the fraud scheme, which operated for at least a year prior to
Williams’s indictment, involved more than 46 victims and Williams’s fraudulent
access to 43 secured accounts; and (2) Williams used multiple shipping addresses
in both Georgia and South Carolina to receive shipments of fraudulently obtained
merchandise in an effort to conceal his criminal conduct. Although Williams
contends that his individual acts were not sophisticated, the district court
concluded that “the totality of the scheme” was sophisticated, considering both
Williams’s use of multiple aliases, credit cards, email accounts, IP addresses and
shipping addresses, and the sophistication required to gain access to victims’
accounts, which was sufficient to support the enhancement. See United States v.
Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “[t]here is no
requirement that each of a defendant’s individual actions be sophisticated[;]
4
Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 5 of 6
[r]ather, it is sufficient if the totality of the scheme was sophisticated”); U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1, cmt. n.8(B) (defining sophisticated means as “especially complex or
especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of
an offense” and citing as examples the use of multiple jurisdictions or the hiding of
transactions through the use of fictitious entities).
Finally, the district court did not clearly err when it denied Defendant
Williams a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Even though
Defendant Williams pled guilty, his plea did not entitle him to a reduction of his
offense level as a matter of right, particularly when the evidence before the
sentencing court showed that Williams’s conduct was inconsistent with an
acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.3. Specifically,
undisputed facts in the PSI established that Williams made false statements to
federal agents during the investigation (denying his involvement in the fraud
scheme) and then made false statements to the probation officer conducting the
presentence investigation (denying he was arrested and convicted of prior felony
forgery and escape offenses). Further, evidence presented during the sentencing
hearing indicated that Williams falsely denied responsibility for almost half of the
offense conduct through his objections to the loss calculation. Even if we consider
only Williams’s conduct after he was indicted, as Williams argues, that conduct—
making false statements to the probation officer and falsely denying a significant
5
Case: 12-13365 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 Page: 6 of 6
portion of the underlying offense conduct—is a sufficient basis to deny the
acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United States v. Castillo-Valencia, 917
F.2d 494, 500 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that we will overturn a district court’s
acceptance-of-responsibility determination only if “it is without foundation”).
For all these reasons, we affirm Defendant Williams’s 37-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.
6