United States v. Cameron Harrison

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 17 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10535
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00004-APG-GWF-24
v.
CAMERON HARRISON, aka Kilobit, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 10, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,** District
Judge.
Defendant Cameron Harrison appeals the imposition of 115 months’
imprisonment following his conviction on two counts under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one count of producing and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
transferring false identification in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1). We vacate
the sentence and remand for resentencing.
1. The district court did not plainly err by applying a 22-level enhancement
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(L)1 on the ground that the loss was more than $20
million. Defendant participated widely in the criminal enterprise, so it was not
obvious that his joint undertaking encompassed less than the full amount lost
during the period of his participation.
2. The district court did not plainly err by applying a two-level enhancement
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4) on the ground that Defendant was in the business of
receiving and selling stolen property. The district court accepted the factual
assertions in the presentence report, to which neither party objected. Although
those assertions primarily concerned Defendant’s receipt of stolen property, some
assertions concerned the sale of property that likely was stolen. Any error in
applying this enhancement was not plain.
3. The district court plainly erred by applying a six-level enhancement
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) on the ground that the crimes "involved 250 or
more victims." "[I]n order to be counted as a victim, a person must have sustained
1
All citations to the Sentencing Guidelines are to the version in effect on the
date of sentencing.
2
a loss that is ‘monetary or that otherwise is readily measurable in money’ and that
loss must be included in the loss calculation." United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d
769, 780–81 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A)(iii)). Here, the
record clearly identified only four victims who suffered loss, so the court plainly
erred by finding that the crimes involved far more victims. Because the error had a
large effect on the Guidelines range and the "Guidelines are the framework for
sentencing and anchor the district court’s discretion," this is not an "unusual" case
warranting deviation from the ordinary rule that an incorrect Guidelines range
prejudiced Defendant. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345,
1347 (2016) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing on an open record.
3