United States v. Caridad Rioseco Alejandrez

Case: 16-15034 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15034
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cr-10012-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARIDAD RIOSECO ALEJANDREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 5, 2017)
Before HULL, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty, Caridad Rioseco-Alejandrez appeals her 48-month
sentence for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Rioseco-Alejandrez, a
Case: 16-15034 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 Page: 2 of 5
professional tax preparer and bookkeeper, filed fraudulent claims on behalf of
herself and others with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”). The GCCF was
established by BP Exploration to administer, process, and settle claims relating to
the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and oil spill. On appeal, Rioseco-
Alejandrez argues that the district court erred in applying a two-point
enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, for her use of a “special skill” in
committing or concealing the fraud offense. Rioseco-Alejandrez argues that, due
to her lack of formal education and training, she did not possess a “special skill” in
the area of tax preparation, and, even if she did possess a “special skill,” she
contends that the district court clearly erred in determining that it “significantly
facilitated” the commission or concealment of her offense.1
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, a defendant’s offense level is increased by
two levels if she used a special skill “in a manner that significantly facilitated the
commission or concealment of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. A special skill is
defined as “a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually
requiring substantial education, training or licensing.” Id. cmt. n.4. Enumerated
1
We review de novo the district court’s legal interpretation of the term “special skill” in
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. United States v. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d 1202, 1219 (11th Cir. 2010).
We review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that the defendant possessed a
special skill. Id. There is no clear error in cases where the record supports the district court’s
findings. United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 16-15034 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 Page: 3 of 5
examples include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition
experts. Id.
If an “average person off the street” does not possess the skill, then the skill
is considered “special” for the purposes of applying the enhancement. De La Cruz
Suarez, 601 F.3d at 1219 (quotation marks omitted). Further, a special skill
requires neither licensing nor formal education. United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d
1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that “[a]lthough printing does not require
licensing or formal education, it is a unique technical skill that clearly requires
special training”); see also United States v. Malgoza, 2 F.3d 1107, 1111 (11th Cir.
1993) (holding that “[a]lthough not every instance of radio operation requires skills
not possessed by members of the general public, it is possible to develop expertise
in that field that rises to the level of a special skill”).
The district court did not err in determining that § 3B1.3’s special skill
enhancement could apply to an experienced professional tax preparer and
bookkeeper who was not formally trained. See Foster, 155 F.3d at 1332; Malgoza,
2 F.3d at 1111. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in finding that
Rioseco-Alejandrez possessed such a “special skill” within the meaning of
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 or that her aptitude in tax preparation “significantly facilitated”
the concealment of her offense. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d at 1219.
3
Case: 16-15034 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 Page: 4 of 5
A review of the record demonstrates that Rioseco-Alejandrez possessed tax
preparation skills beyond those of the average person and that she used those skills
in an attempt to commit and conceal her fraud offense. See Petrie, 302 F.3d at
1290. Though not formally educated or licensed, Rioseco-Alejandrez had
developed expertise in the field during her twenty-five years of experience
preparing tax documents for individuals and businesses and providing bookkeeping
services. What Rioseco-Alejandrez lacked in formal education, she compensated
for through her years of experience and her receipt of a Paid Preparer Tax
Identification Number from the IRS to prepare taxes on others’ behalf, both of
which separate her from the general public.
Using her special skill, Rioseco-Alejandrez fraudulently filed claims with
GCCF for compensation of lost profits and earnings for herself, her father, and
numerous unindicted coconspirators. These claims included fraudulent supporting
documentation, including handwritten letters claiming economic harm, and
fraudulent federal income tax forms from 2008 and 2009, meant to demonstrate
that the Deepwater Horizon incident had dramatically reduced the claimants’
earnings. Rioseco-Alejandrez’s fraudulently filed claims resulted in an intended
loss exceeding $500,000, but less than $1,500,000.
At sentencing, the government presented evidence that Rioseco-Alejandrez
used her tax preparation knowledge to “reverse-engineer[]” the tax returns and
4
Case: 16-15034 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 Page: 5 of 5
Schedule C forms she submitted to the GCCF and to the IRS. Specifically, fraud
analyst Robert Passero testified that Rioseco-Alejandrez’s process for reverse
engineering the forms included ensuring that the taxable income reported on the
forms sent to the GCCF matched the taxable income on the returns that had been
sent to the IRS, but changing the Schedule C values so that the claimant could
show a loss for GCCF purposes, that was not reflected in the forms submitted to
the IRS. This type of doctoring of the documentation required Rioseco-Alejandrez
to have knowledge of how the Schedule C values interacted with one another and
with the bottom line of a claimant’s taxable income. As the district court noted,
“there was some skill involved in figuring these out . . so . . . they don’t get trapped
immediately.”
Finally the district court did not clearly err in finding that Rioseco-
Alejandrez’s aptitude in preparing taxes “significantly facilitated” the concealment
of the offense because, as explained above, Rioseco-Alejandrez recognized that
she could potentially avoid fraud detection by keeping the same taxable income
value on the forms submitted to the GCCF and the IRS, even though the Schedule
C values did not match. Therefore, the record as a whole supports the district
court’s application of § 3B1.3’s two-level special skill enhancement.
For these reasons, we affirm Rioseco-Alejandrez’s 48-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5