United States v. Daniel Goodheart , 345 F. App'x 523 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13484 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00309-CR-T-17MSS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL GOODHEART,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 23, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Goodheart appeals his 60-month sentence for conspiracy to defraud
the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371. Reversible error has been shown; we vacate
and remand for additional proceedings.
A jury convicted Goodheart, a prison psychologist, of joining a conspiracy
within the prison that filed false and fraudulent income tax returns. He provided
co-conspirators with social security numbers of inmates from prison system
databases and helped circumvent the prison’s mail system when sending out the
fraudulent tax returns. The total actual amount of fraudulent refunds received by
the conspirators was $902,487.87 while the total intended loss (based on the
number of returns filed and the amount of funds requested) of the scheme was
$2,733,525.00.
Over Goodheart’s objection, the district court determined that the scope of
the entire conspiracy reasonably was foreseeable to him and attributed the entire
amount of the intended loss to him. Because the intended loss was over
$2,500,000.00 and less than $7,000,000.00, Goodheart’s base offense level of 6
was increased by 18 levels to 24. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a), (b)(1)(J).1 While the
1
For enhancement purposes, the greater of the actual or intended loss is used. U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1, comment. (n.3(a)).
2
guidelines calculations resulted in a range of 78 to 97 months, operation of the
statutory maximum made Goodheart’s guidelines range 60 months. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 371.
On appeal, Goodheart argues that the district court erred by attributing to
him the full amount of the intended loss because the loss that occurred before his
entry into the conspiracy should not be attributed to him.2 He seeks a remand so
that the court can determine the exact loss amount attributable to him. We review
the district court’s loss determination for clear error and questions of law under the
sentencing guidelines de novo. United States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078, 1087
(11th Cir. 2006).
“[T]he district court may hold all participants in a conspiracy responsible for
the losses resulting from the reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in
furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071, 1082 (11th
Cir. 1998); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). But to determine the liability for
the acts of others, the district court first must make individualized findings about
the scope of criminal activity undertaken by a particular defendant. United States
v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314, 1319-20 (11th Cir. 2003); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3,
comment. (n.2).
2
Goodheart does not dispute the total of the intended loss, just the portion of that loss that
should be attributed to him.
3
Here, the district court erred in attributing the entire intended loss amount to
Goodheart because trial testimony made clear that he joined the conspiracy after its
inception. See id. (explaining that “[a] defendant’s relevant conduct does not
include the conduct of members of a conspiracy [before] the defendant’s joining
the conspiracy, even if the defendant knows of that conduct”); United States v.
Word, 129 F.3d 1209, 1213 (11th Cir. 1997) (it is erroneous to hold a defendant
liable for loss resulting from before the defendant joined the conspiracy).
And the district court made no required individualized findings about when
Goodheart joined the conspiracy. While trial testimony suggested that Goodheart
joined the conspiracy in June 2002, neither the indictment nor the district court’s
speculation about Goodheart’s close proximity to the leaders of the conspiracy
established a specific date. Thus, it is unclear what loss occurred before Goodheart
joined the conspiracy and how much of the intended loss should be attributed to
him. And it was the obligation of the district court to make these determinations.
See Hunter, 323 F.3d at 1319-20. Therefore, we vacate and remand so that the
district court can make the appropriate findings and determine the proper amount
of loss attributable to Goodheart.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4