USA v. Christopher Jackson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15637
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20479-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 28, 2016)
Before HULL, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 1 of 18

-- 1 of 18 --

2
Christopher Jackson appeals his 78-month sentence and $2,088,677.53
restitution after pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Jackson was charged by information with committing two counts of mail
fraud. Count 1 alleged Jackson mailed two fraudulent tax-refund checks from
Florida to Ohio on April 11, 2014; Count 2 alleged Jackson mailed one fraudulent
tax-refund check from Florida to Ohio on April 22, 2014. The information alleged
these checks were sent as part of a scheme, lasting from December 2011 through
April 22, 2014, in which Jackson sent hundreds of fraudulently obtained tax-refund
checks, totaling approximately $2 million, and corresponding fraudulent
identification documents to a check casher in Ohio for cashing. Pursuant to a
written plea agreement, Jackson pled guilty to Count 1 of the information; Count 2
was dismissed. In his plea agreement, Jackson reserved the right to contest the
alleged $2 million loss amount at sentencing.
Jackson executed a factual proffer with his plea agreement. The proffer
states, at some unspecified time, Jackson began mailing tax-refund checks from
Miami, Florida, to James Powers at United Check Cashing (“United”) in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Powers would cash the checks and repay Jackson by sending
him cash through the mail. Law enforcement became aware of fraudulent tax-
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 2 of 18

-- 2 of 18 --

3
refund checks being cashed at United and approached Powers, who agreed to
cooperate. In March 2014, Powers contacted Jackson and asked him to send tax-
refund checks. On April 11, 2014, Jackson went to a post office in Miami and
prepared an envelope to send to United; he used a false name and return address.
Jackson concealed two tax-refund checks, totaling $6,451, inside a book and
placed the book in the envelope for mailing. Law enforcement took a fingerprint
sample from the book; the fingerprints taken matched Jackson’s fingerprints.
Jackson admitted in his proffer that both checks were obtained through the filing of
fraudulent tax returns; he knew the tax-refund checks had been obtained by fraud.
Neither of the individuals to whom the checks were addressed lived at the address
listed on the tax-refund checks, was aware of the tax-refund checks in their names,
nor had authorized Jackson to cash those checks.
In the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), the probation officer
assigned Jackson (1) a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I),
since the amount of loss was more than $1 million but less than $2.5 million, (2) a
6-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), because the crime involved
250 or more victims, and (3) a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(ii), since the crime involved the possession of five or more
means of identification that were unlawfully produced from, or obtained by, the
use of another means of identification. Jackson objected to each of these
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 3 of 18

-- 3 of 18 --

4
enhancements as well as the underlying factual allegations on which the probation
officer relied in applying them.
At the first sentencing hearing on December 4, 2014, the government
presented the testimony of James Powers, the owner of United, an unindicted co-
conspirator, and Special Agent Jason Leighton, of the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”). Powers testified he was introduced to Jackson in 2011 by Glenda
Johnson, Jackson’s cousin, who told him Jackson prepared taxes in Florida and
needed someone to cash tax-refund checks for him. Powers began receiving tax-
refund checks from Jackson in 2011 and continued to receive these checks from
Jackson throughout 2012. In 2012, Powers cashed approximately $2.3 million in
tax-refund checks for Jackson. Initially, Jackson provided copies of Florida
driver’s licenses along with the checks he sent to Powers but later stopped sending
identification documents, although Powers generally required such documentation.
Powers estimated he received more than 100 copies of driver’s licenses before
Jackson stopped sending them.
At the end of 2012, Powers began receiving notifications from his bank that
many of the checks Jackson had sent, totaling approximately $140,000, had been
reclaimed by the Department of Treasury. Powers contacted Jackson about the
reclamation notices to find out what was happening, but Jackson provided only
vague responses. Powers testified he believed he had received a total of 150 to 200
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 4 of 18

-- 4 of 18 --

5
checks from Jackson but was unsure of the exact number. Powers admitted he
never personally saw Jackson place any of the tax-refund checks in the mail but,
based on his communications with Jackson, he explained it was his understanding
all of the tax-refund checks he received from South Florida came from Jackson.
To his knowledge, none of the tax-refund checks were sent by Glenda Johnson.
Agent Leighton testified 513 U.S. Treasury checks were cashed in Powers’s
bank account in 2012. Of those tax-refund checks, 485 had Florida addresses; only
one had an Ohio address. Approximately 183 of the tax-refund checks were from
tax returns filed in years other than 2012. Agent
Leighton stated he took a sampling of nineteen names from the tax-refund
checks and ran the Social Security numbers associated with those names to
determine whether those individuals resided at the addresses listed on the tax-
refund checks. Of those nineteen individuals, only two had addresses on file that
corresponded to the address listed on the tax-refund check. For the remaining
seventeen names, there was no evidence those individuals were connected with the
address listed on their tax-refund checks. During a recess in the proceedings,
Agent Leighton conducted a search with an additional sample of twenty
individuals; for fourteen of those individuals, he found the address on the tax-
refund check did not correspond to their addresses of record. Without interviewing
any of the individuals involved, he conceded he could not say with certainty
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 5 of 18

-- 5 of 18 --

6
whether any particular tax-refund checks were fraudulent. Agent Leighton further
testified he reviewed a spreadsheet, prepared by another agent, which listed the
driver’s license numbers for the identifications Jackson had provided to Powers.
Agent Leighton ran five of those driver’s license numbers through the Florida
database and found none of the numbers matched records in the database.
Following Powers and Agent Leighton’s testimony, the government argued
it had satisfied its burden of proving the challenged enhancements and had shown
all of the tax-refund checks were fraudulent. Jackson contended the testimony
presented was not sufficient, because it failed to establish definitively either that
Jackson sent all of the tax-refund checks or that all of the tax-refund checks were
fraudulent. The district judge directed the government to conduct additional
analysis on the tax-refund checks at issue and continued the sentencing hearing for
that purpose.
In advance of the second sentencing hearing, the government submitted a
sentencing memorandum, summarizing its additional analysis concerning the 513
tax-refund checks cashed by Powers in 2012. The total amount of those 513 tax-
refund checks was $2,366,006.65. The government determined four of the tax-
refund checks, totaling $20,482, came from taxpayers who lived within a 50-mile
radius of Powers’s business and appeared to be legitimate.
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 6 of 18

-- 6 of 18 --

7
The government argued the remaining 509 tax-refund checks were plainly
fraudulent, and their fraudulent nature could be established by a preponderance of
the evidence based on the following facts. First, 456 (90 percent) of the tax-refund
checks had addresses that did not match the taxpayer’s address of record. The
government explained this was an indication of fraud, because it was unlikely a
taxpayer would cause their tax-refund check to be sent to an address with which he
or she never had been associated. Regarding the 53 tax-refund checks that
contained matching addresses, the government argued many, if not all, of those
tax-refund checks likely were stolen from the mail. For 24 of the 53 tax-refund
checks, the government had received taxpayers’ affidavits stating they had not
received their tax-refund checks.
In addition, the government stated the tax returns underlying the 509 tax-
refund checks cashed in 2012 contained numerous indicators of fraud. Many of
the tax returns were for tax years prior to 2012, including 21 returns from 2005,
2008, and 2009, 164 returns from 2010, and 323 returns from 2011. In addition, at
least 213 of the returns came from populations that typically do not file tax returns.
Specifically, 71 returns came from individuals age 70 and older, 61 returns came
from individuals age 20 and under, 31 returns came from deceased individuals, 30
returns came from Puerto Rican citizens, and 16 returns came from prisoners.
Furthermore, 170 of the returns reported no wages but claimed large tax refunds;
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 7 of 18

-- 7 of 18 --

8
many of the returns claimed identical tax-refund amounts. Finally, a substantial
number of returns were filed well after the end of the tax-filing season, a factor
highly correlated with fraud.
At the continuation of the sentencing hearing on December 16, 2014, Agent
Leighton testified regarding the information contained in the government’s
sentencing memorandum. The government also admitted into evidence two
spreadsheets, containing information about each of the tax returns associated with
the tax-refund checks at issue in this case, which provided the basis for Agent
Leighton’s testimony and the government’s sentencing memorandum. Agent
Leighton explained the returns associated with Puerto Rican citizens were suspect
because, unless they work for the federal government, Puerto Rican citizens are not
subject to federal income tax. Agent Leighton conceded he did not investigate to
determine whether any of the Puerto Rican tax returns in this case were filed by
government employees. He also acknowledged an indicator of fraud did not
necessarily mean a return is fraudulent; without interviewing all of the taxpayers
involved, he could not say definitively all of the tax-refund checks were fraudulent.
Agent Leighton further explained (1) there were some situations in which a person
who reported no wages could nevertheless be entitled to a tax refund, (2) a
surviving spouse or executor could file a final tax return on behalf of a deceased
individual, and (3) it was not illegal for prisoners to file tax returns.
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 8 of 18

-- 8 of 18 --

9
Following Agent Leighton’s testimony, the government argued all 509 of the
relevant tax-refund checks were fraudulent. In support of this argument, the
government noted (1) Jackson admitted in his factual proffer to sending two
fraudulent tax-refund checks in 2014; (2) all of the identification documents in the
sample the government had checked were fraudulent; (3) Powers testified all of the
checks came from Jackson; (4) the addresses on 90 percent of the tax-refund
checks did not match the taxpayers’ addresses of record; (5) of the 53 returns that
had matching addresses, 24 taxpayers filed affidavits stating they did not receive
their tax-refund check, indicating those checks were stolen from the mail; and
(6) more than 200 of the returns were filed by categories of individuals who
typically would not file returns. Cumulatively, the government contended these
facts showed all of the returns were fraudulent.
In response, Jackson argued the government failed to determine which tax-
refund checks actually were fraudulent, despite having ample time and resources to
make this determination. Jackson further asserted the government had not met its
burden of showing the loss amount exceeded $1 million or there were more than
250 victims. Because the government had not met its burden or determined which
tax-refund checks were fraudulent, Jackson contended he should not be held
responsible for the $2.3 million loss amount.
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 9 of 18

-- 9 of 18 --

10
The district judge stated she had reviewed the government’s sentencing
memorandum and was “very persuaded that the government had gone back, and
with the information it had, it had culled through and was giving me a number of
indicators of fraud, and the testimony today matches that sentencing
memorandum.” R. at 257. She further stated the government had shown by a
preponderance of the evidence the Sentencing Guidelines calculations in the PSI
were correct. The judge sentenced Jackson to 78 months of imprisonment, at the
bottom of his Guidelines range as calculated in his PSI.
On January 30, 2015, the district judge held a restitution hearing. Prior to
the hearing, the government filed a restitution memorandum, in which it stated it
sought repayment of only the 485 Florida tax-refund checks, which totaled
$2,217,689.26. The government further noted the Department of Treasury already
had reclaimed $129,011.73 from Powers’s bank account. Therefore, the
government sought restitution in the amount of $2,088,677.53.
At the restitution hearing, Agent Leighton testified the 485 Florida tax-
refund checks totaling $2,217,689.26 and $129,011.73 had been reclaimed. He
acknowledged some of the money from the Florida tax-refund checks could be
legitimate. While he stated he had the opportunity to do so, he did not send letters
or contact victims to determine the exact amount of restitution Jackson owed. On
questioning by the judge, Agent Leighton conceded he could not say definitively
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 10 of 18

-- 10 of 18 --

11
the entire amount of the Florida tax-refund checks was fraudulent. He reiterated
there were indicators of fraud concerning those tax-refund checks and summarized
his previous testimony concerning those indicators of fraud. The government
argued the evidence presented at sentencing established the tax-refund checks
came from Jackson and were fraudulent. The government acknowledged it was
possible some of the checks were not fraudulent but asserted no evidence had been
presented to suggest any of the tax-refund checks were legitimate.
Jackson argued the government was required to prove the exact amount of
restitution owed, but it had failed to produce that proof. Despite having the
opportunity to do so, Agent Leighton reiterated he had not contacted the alleged
victims to find out which tax-refund checks were fraudulent. Furthermore, Agent
Leighton could state with certainty the reclaimed amount of approximately
$129,000 was fraudulent. Jackson contended the indicators of fraud relied on by
the government did not suffice to prove the exact amount of restitution. Because
the government did not prove Jackson was responsible for the full amount of the
tax-refund checks, he argued the judge could not hold him responsible for that
amount.
The judge found the government had made a sufficient showing to support
the requested amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence, and
ordered restitution in the amount of $2,088,677.53. On appeal, Jackson argues the
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 11 of 18

-- 11 of 18 --

12
judge violated his right to due process by relying on unreliable evidence in
resolving the disputed sentencing issues regarding the amount of loss, number of
victims, and use of five or more means of identification as well as the restitution
amount. Jackson asserts Powers’s testimony was unreliable, because (1) as an
unindicted co-conspirator, he had a strong motive to remain unindicted by placing
the blame entirely on Jackson; (2) he did not have records to substantiate his
communications with Jackson and could not state with certainty that Jackson,
rather than Glenda Johnson, was the one sending him the tax-refund checks; and
(3) his testimony about the number of tax-refund checks he received from Jackson
(150-200) was inconsistent with Agent Leighton’s testimony there were a total of
513 checks. He argues Agent Leighton’s testimony was likewise unreliable,
because Agent Leighton could not testify all of the tax-refund checks were
fraudulent and did not conduct interviews to determine which tax returns were
fraudulent, although he could have done so. Jackson further maintains the
government’s sentencing memorandum and Agent Leighton’s testimony are
unreliable, since the government did not present any evidence or legal authority in
support of the claimed indicators of fraud. Consequently, Jackson contends the
evidence presented at sentencing and at the restitution hearing was insufficient to
support the sentencing enhancements he received and the restitution amount
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 12 of 18

-- 12 of 18 --

13
imposed. Finally, Jackson requests the government be precluded from presenting
additional evidence on remand.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo constitutional challenges to a defendant’s sentence.
United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the
district judge’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings
of fact for clear error. United States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1339 (11th Cir.
2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1188 (2015). We review the legality of a restitution
order de novo and the factual findings underlying that order for clear error. United
States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 310
(2014). Credibility determinations typically are the province of the factfinder; we
generally will defer to the district judge’s credibility determination, unless the
testimony is exceedingly improbable so no reasonable factfinder could accept it.
United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002).
The government bears the burden of proving both the applicability of
sentencing enhancements and the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the
evidence. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1261 (restitution); United States v. Washington,
714 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 2013) (sentencing enhancements). Under that
standard, the burden is satisfied if the trier of fact “believe[s] that the existence of a
fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 13 of 18

-- 13 of 18 --

14
1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Due
process requires the evidence presented bear “minimal indicia of reliability,” and
the defendant be given the opportunity to refute that evidence. Rodriguez, 751
F.3d at 1261 (restitution); see also United States v. Giltner, 889 F.2d 1004, 1007
(11th Cir. 1989) (sentencing enhancements). Where a defendant challenges his
sentence because the judge relied upon false or unreliable information, the
defendant must show “(1) that the challenged evidence is materially false or
unreliable and (2) that it actually served as the basis for the sentence.” Ghertler,
605 F.3d at 1269.
Jackson’s due process claim fails, because he cannot show the evidence
relied upon by the judge was materially false or unreliable. See id. at 1269. First,
Jackson contends Powers’s testimony was inherently unreliable, since he is an
unindicted co-conspirator and therefore had a motive to stay unindicted and accuse
Jackson. But Jackson had the opportunity to cross-examine Powers concerning his
bias and motivation for testifying; it was within the judge’s discretion to determine
whether and to what extent to credit Powers’s testimony. See Ramirez-Chilel, 289
F.3d at 749.
Jackson also contends Powers’s testimony was unreliable, because
(1) Powers could not state with certainty Jackson had mailed the tax-refund
checks; (2) Powers did not provide phone records to substantiate his
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 14 of 18

-- 14 of 18 --

15
communications with Jackson; and (3) Powers’s testimony concerning the number
of tax-refund checks was inconsistent with Agent Leighton’s testimony. These
arguments are unavailing. The mere fact Powers was not physically present when
Jackson mailed the tax-refund checks does not render unreliable his testimony he
understood, based on his communications with Jackson, that Jackson was the
person sending the tax-refund checks. Although Powers did not have telephone
records to substantiate his testimony, Jackson’s fingerprints were found on the
book containing the two fraudulent tax-refund checks Jackson sent to Powers in
April 2014, which evidenced Jackson was the person who had sent those tax-
refund checks and provided circumstantial evidence to corroborate Jackson also
sent the 2012 refund checks. Likewise, Powers’s inaccurate testimony concerning
the number of checks does not suggest his testimony is otherwise unreliable.
Powers acknowledged he was unsure of the exact number of tax-refund checks; it
is not unreasonable to conclude Powers may have forgotten some details in the two
years that had elapsed between the transactions at issue and the sentencing hearing.
Furthermore, Powers’s testimony concerning the total amount of the tax-refund
checks ($2.3 million) was consistent with the amount identified in the IRS
investigation and with Agent Leighton’s testimony.
Jackson also challenges Agent Leighton’s testimony and the government’s
sentencing memorandum, because they relied on indicators of fraud rather than
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 15 of 18

-- 15 of 18 --

16
direct evidence that each individual tax return was fraudulent. Significantly, the
issue before us is whether the evidence actually presented by the government was
reliable and sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof, not whether the government
could have produced better evidence. See Ghertler, 605 F.3d at 1269. That the
government could have taken further investigative steps to obtain direct evidence
has no bearing on the reliability of the circumstantial evidence it did produce.
Agent Leighton’s acknowledgment of some circumstances in which tax returns
containing indicators of fraud might be legitimate does not render his testimony
concerning those factors false or unreliable. Instead, it is consistent with his
testimony that, though the indicators suggest fraud, they do not in themselves
definitively establish a tax return is fraudulent. Therefore, Agent Leighton merely
acknowledged the indicators provided circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence
of fraud.
Furthermore, other evidence suggests the indicators of fraud are reliable in
this case. Jackson eventually stopped sending identification documents along with
the tax-refund checks, although Powers typically required this documentation, and
a sample of five of the Florida driver’s license numbers Jackson did provide
revealed none of those numbers were on file in the Florida database. In addition,
identity-theft affidavits were filed for 24 of the tax returns at issue, resulting in the
reclamation by the Treasury Department of approximately $130,000 in fraudulent
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 16 of 18

-- 16 of 18 --

17
tax refunds. Finally, Jackson admitted to knowingly sending fraudulent tax-refund
checks in 2014; as with the majority of the tax-refund checks sent in 2012, the
addresses on those checks did not match the taxpayers’ addresses of record.
In summary, the evidence on which the judge relied was not materially false
or unreliable; consequently, the judge did not violate Jackson’s right to due process
by relying on that evidence. See Ghertler, 605 F.3d at 1269. Furthermore, the
evidence was sufficient to establish the challenged sentencing enhancements and
restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at
1261; Washington, 714 F.3d at 1361. First, Agent Leighton’s testimony
concerning the various indicators of fraud associated with the returns as well as the
other circumstances already addressed demonstrated the tax-refund checks more
likely than not were fraudulent. See Almedina, 686 F.3d at 1315. Second, Powers
and Agent Leighton’s testimony established (1) Jackson had sent more than 500
fraudulent tax-refund checks to Powers, evidencing there were more than likely
250 victims; (2) the tax-refund checks totaled approximately $2.3 million,
demonstrating the amount of loss was more than $1 million but less than $2.5
million; and (3) Jackson had sent at least five false driver’s licenses to Powers,
showing the crime involved the use of five or more means of identification that
were unlawfully produced from, or obtained by, the use of another means of
identification. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), (b)(2)(C), (b)(11)(C)(ii). Third, at
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 17 of 18

-- 17 of 18 --

18
the restitution hearing, Agent Leighton testified the 485 Florida tax-refund checks
for which the government sought restitution totaled $2,217,689.26, the IRS already
had reclaimed $129,011.73, and the indicators of fraud relied on at sentencing
demonstrated the entire amount was derived from fraudulent tax returns.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-15637 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 18 of 18

-- 18 of 18 --