United States of America v. Jason Wayne Moore

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3211
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JASON WAYNE MOORE,
Appellant
_______________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00022
(Honorable Joseph E. Irenas)
___________________
Argued October 12, 2001
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 31, 2002)
CHRISTOPHER H. O’MALLEY, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
Office of Federal Public Defender
800 Hudson Square, Suite 350
Camden, New Jersey 08102
Attorney for Appellant
RICARDO SOLANO, JR., ESQUIRE (ARGUED)
Office of United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Room 700
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Attorney for Appellee
______________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
______________
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
Jason Moore pled guilty under a plea agreement to the misdemeanor of
manufacturing paper similar in size to U.S. currency (18 U.S.C. 491). He was
sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, one year supervised release, a $25 assessment and
restitution of $320 to Six Flags Great Adventure Theme Park.

-- 1 of 2 --

The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in not applying the minor
role deduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. We will affirm.
I.
Moore was involved in a counterfeit money operation led by David Delisi that also
involved Kirsten Kirch and two other juveniles. On July 19, 1999, Moore, Delisi and one
of the juveniles passed three counterfeit $20 Federal Reserve notes at a convenience store
in Jackson, New Jersey. Joined by Kirch and the other juvenile, they subsequently passed
a total of 16 counterfeit $20 notes at Six Flags Great Adventure Theme Park in Jackson.
Delisi accepted responsibility as the leader of the operation. He created the
counterfeit notes at his home using a personal computer, scanner, printer and paper cutter.
Moore assisted in manufacturing by cutting sheets of counterfeit notes into individual
notes. With Moore’s assistance, Delisi created $2000 in counterfeit $20 notes.
The statutory maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. 491(b) is 12 months’
imprisonment. Moore’s base offense level was 9. U.S.S.G. 2B5.1. In his plea
agreement, Moore stipulated to an offense level of 15 for his involvement in
manufacturing counterfeit currency. U.S.S.G. 2B5.1(b)(2). Two levels were reduced
because Moore had clearly accepted responsibility for his actions. U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a).
With an adjusted offense level of 13 and a Criminal History Category of I, Moore’s
sentencing guideline range was 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge
denied Moore’s motion for a minor role deduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 and sentenced
Moore to 12 months’ imprisonment.
II.
Moore contends the denial of his 3B1.2 motion was not factually supported. We
review 3B1.2 denials based on allegedly faulty factual findings for clear error. United
States v. Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236, 237 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Bierley,
922 F.2d 1061, 1064 (3d Cir. 1990)). A "minor role" deduction is applicable when the
defendant was less culpable than most of the other participants. U.S.S.G. 3B1.2,
Application Note 3. Sentencing courts have broad discretion in applying 3B1.2, "and
their rulings are left largely undisturbed by the courts of appeal." Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d
at 238. The factual determination depends on "(1) the defendant’s awareness of the
nature and scope of the criminal enterprise; (2) the nature of the defendant’s relationship
to the other participants; and (3) the importance of the defendant’s actions to the success
of the venture." United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811, 819 (3d Cir. 2000). These factors
should be weighed comparatively between the defendant and other participants. Id. at
819. The record supports the sentencing court’s determination that Moore was not less
culpable than most of the participants involved in the criminal conduct. We see no clear
error.
Moore also contends the District Court mistakenly believed a 3B1.2 deduction
could not be granted in a misdemeanor conviction. This claim is meritless.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Anthony J. Scirica
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --