USA v. Jamil Murni

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 16, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15322
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20074-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMIL MURNI,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 16, 2011)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
Jamil Murni appeals his 45-month sentence, imposed pursuant to his guilty plea
to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On appeal, Murni argues that the

-- 1 of 4 --

district court mistakenly applied a sophisticated means sentencing enhancement to his
sentence by creating a per se rule that the use of a shell corporation in the commission
of a fraud was sophisticated means. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s “findings of fact related to the imposition of
sentencing enhancements, including a finding that the defendant used sophisticated
means, for clear error.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir.
2010) (quotation omitted). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when we are “left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United
States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).
However, we review “any rulings of law made by the district court in conjunction
with the sophisticated means enhancement de novo.” United States v. Barakat, 130
F.3d 1448, 1456 (11th Cir. 1997).
Sophisticated means are defined as “especially complex or especially intricate
offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense . . . Conduct
such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities,
corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated
means.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) & cmt. n.8(B). A sophisticated means
enhancement does not require every action taken in furtherance of the fraud be
2

-- 2 of 4 --

sophisticated, but rather that the “totality of the scheme was sophisticated.” Ghertler,
605 F.3d at 1267.
Here, the record shows that the district court did not rule based solely on the
existence of a shell corporation and instead properly considered the totality of the
scheme. The court specifically noted: (1) the registration of the fictitious company,
Sea Fuels Trading (“SFT”); (2) the opening of a bank account for SFT; (3) the use of
separate addresses in those two transactions; (4) Murni’s application as SFT to be a
fuel supplier for Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines (“RCCL”); (5) the use of a false
address, the creation of company officers, and the use of his son’s social security
number for a false officer in that application; (6) the actual conduct that Murni
undertook as SFT once the application was granted -- buying cheaper fuel from
competitors, sometimes with cashier’s checks and sometimes in the amounts of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then billing RCCL for the fuel as SFT at an
inflated price; and (7) the fact that this scheme “was repeated over 100 times.” The
record therefore fails to show a per se rule, as it indicates that a shell corporation was
not the sole factor in the district court’s decision and does not hint that a shell
corporation alone would be enough to warrant a sentence enhancement in future
cases.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Nor does the record reveal that the imposition of the sophisticated means
enhancement constituted clear error. The Guidelines note that hiding assets or
transactions through the use of a corporate shell “ordinarily indicates sophisticated
means,” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.8(B), and given the number of factors the district
court considered in properly applying the totality of the scheme test, we are not left
with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a mistake in its
analysis. Murni has not met his burden to show clear error, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --