Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
FortheSeventhCircuit
Chicago,Illinois60604
ArguedNovember10,2010
DecidedDecember23,2010
Before
RICHARDD.CUDAHY,CircuitJudge
DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge
DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge
No.101518
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
EDWARDBOSIRE,
DefendantAppellant.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheEasternDistrictofWisconsin.
No.09CR84
CharlesN.Clevert,Jr.,
ChiefJudge.
ORDER
EdwardBosirepleadedguiltytomailfraudandwassentencedto39months’
imprisonment.Onappealhearguesthatheshouldhavereceivedatwolevelreductionasa
minorparticipantinthefraud.Becausethedistrictcourtdidnotclearlyerrinrefusingthis
reduction,weaffirmthejudgment.
EdwardBosireandhiswife,AngelaMartinMulu,bothasylumrefugeesfromKenya,
engagedinafouryearfraudschemethattargetedseveralMidwestreligiouscommunities.
Thecouplerepresentedthemselvesassiblingsandtoldtheirvictimsthattheywere
homelessillegalimmigrantssufferingfromseriousmedicalconditionsincludingmalaria
andtuberculosis,andthattheyhadsignificantlegalbillsattendanttotheirimmigration
status.Duringthefouryearperiodcoveredbytheindictment,thecouplenettedover$1.1
millioninproceeds,including$815,000fromtheDiscalcedCarmeliteNunsofPewaukee,
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No.101518 Page2
Wisconsin.Thoughthecouplesaidtheyneededthefundsforlegalandmedicalbillsand
tuition,theyusedthemoneytomaintaintwoapartmentsandgambledawaynearly$1
million.
InMarch2009,thecouplewaschargedwithmailfraudunder18U.S.C.§1341.
Bosirepleadedguiltypursuanttoawrittenpleaagreement,andconcededthattherelevant
conductatsentencingshouldincludethetotalproceedsofthefraud.Theprobationofficer
setabaseoffenselevelof7,seeU.S.S.G.§2B1.1(a)(1),andadded14levelsafterconcluding
thatthelosswasmorethan$400,000butlessthan$1million,seeid.§2B1.1(b)(1)(H).The
probationofficeralsoaddedtwolevelsbecausetheoffenseinvolved10ormorevictims,
seeid.§2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(1),andsubtractedthreelevelsforacceptanceofresponsibility,
seeid.§3E1.1.Bosire’stotaloffenselevelof20andcriminalhistorycategoryofIyieldedan
imprisonmentrangeof33to41months.
Inresponsetothepresentencereportandagainatsentencing,defensecounsel
arguedthatBosiremeritedanadditionaltwolevelreductionunderU.S.S.G.§3B1.2(b)asa
minorparticipantinthefraud.CounselarguedthatBosirehadfarlesscontactwiththe
victimsthanMartinMulu,pointingtoseveralvictimstatementsthatcitednocontactwith
Bosire.CounselalsomaintainedthatBosirewasjusta“prop”or“driver,”andthatheoften
remainedinthecarwhileMartinMulutalkedtothevictims.Finally,hearguedthatBosire
hadlessthanfullknowledgeaboutMartinMulu’sinteractionswiththevictimsbecausethe
couplemaintainedseparateresidencesandwereoftenapartwhileBosireattendedclasses
andworkedasatruckdriver.
Thedistrictcourtrejectedthesearguments,reasoningthatbybeingpresentbut
stayinginthecarBosirefacilitatedMartinMulu’sstorythathewasinillhealth.Thecourt
alsonotedthatthefraudhadspannedfouryears,therewasnoindicationthatBosirewas
notfullyawareofwhatwasgoingonorthathehadforegonethebenefitsofthefraud,and
therewasnoindicationthathehadtriedtostopthefraud.Thedistrictcourtadoptedthe
probationofficer’sproposedfindings,sentencedBosireto39months’imprisonment,and
assignedhimjointliabilityforrestitutiontotalingover$980,000.
OnappealBosirearguesthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitdeclinedtogranthima
minorrolereduction,renewinghisargumentsboththathewasamere“prop”inthefraud
andneithernecessarynoressentialtothefraud’ssuccess.Tomeritthereduction,Bosire
hadtoshowbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethathewassubstantiallylessculpablethan
theaverageparticipantinthescheme.SeeU.S.S.G.§3B1.2(b),cmt.n.3(A);UnitedStatesv.
Doe,613F.3d681,687(7thCir.2010).Wereviewforclearerrorthefactualfindings
underlyingasentencingcourt’sdenialofamitigatingroleadjustment.UnitedStatesv.
PanaiguaVerdugo,537F.3d722,724(7thCir.2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

No.101518 Page3
ButBosireprovidednoevidenceatsentencinginsupportofhisargument.Nordid
heintroduceanyevidencechallengingtheaccuracyoftheinformationcontainedinthe
presentencereport.SeeUnitedStatesv.Heckel,570F.3d791,795(7thCir.2009)(statingthata
defendantcannotchallengeapresentencereportbymakinga“baredenial”ofitsaccuracy);
seealsoUnitedStatesv.Hankton,432F.3d779,790(7thCir.2005).Theevidenceatsentencing
showedthatBosireengagedinafouryearschemewithMartinMulutodefraudabroad
arrayofreligiousgroupsandpersons.Healsotookseveralstepstoassistinthefraud,by
receivingandcashingchecksonatleastoneoccasionandbydrivingMartinMulutovisit
prospectiveandongoingvictims.Andthoughhedisputesthedegreeofbenefithereaped
fromthefraud,itisclearthathedidbenefit—headmittedthathefrequentlygambledwith
someoftheproceedsandspenttherest.Healsofailedtodoanythingtostopthefraud.
Moreover,Bosireadmittedthatheassistedbothincontactingandcontinuingtodefraudthe
Carmelites,whoselossconstitutedthebulkofthemoneytaken.
NorcanBosiredisavowknowledgeofthefullscheme.Heacknowledgedinhisplea
agreementthatthefullproceedsofthefraudwererelevantconductforsentencing
purposes.ItisnotclearfromtherecordifBosirehimselfspoketoanyvictims,buthis
absenceadvancedthecouple’sstorythathewas“toosick”tomeetwithvictims.And
thoughBosirearguesthathehad“lesserknowledge”becausehewasnotpresentforallthe
meetings,thedistrictcourtcreditedMartinMulu’spleahearingtestimonythattherewere
“nosecrets”betweenthecouple;itneednothavecreditedBosire’sunswornallocutionto
thecontrary,U.S.S.G.§3B1.2,cmt.n.3(C);UnitedStatesv.Howard,454F.3d700,703(7thCir.
2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --