United States v. Darryl Stanley Paxton, Jr. , 450 F. App'x 902 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-11441 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 10, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cr-60316-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRYL STANLEY PAXTON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 10, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court convicted Darryl Stanley Paxton, Jr., on pleas of guilty,
made pursuant to a plea agreement, to all counts of a 15-count indictment: Counts
1 through 6, wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Counts 7 through 10,
fraudulent use of a Social Security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 408(a)(7)(B); and Counts 11 through 15, money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957(a). The court then sentenced Paxton to concurrent prison terms of
84 months on Counts 1 through 6 and 11 through 15 and 60 months on Counts 7
through 10.1 The court imposed the 84 months’ sentences at the bottom third of
the Guidelines sentence range, 78 to 97 months.
Paxton now appeals the sentences he received on Counts 1 through 6 and 11
through 15 on the ground that they are procedurally unreasonable, to-wit: the
district court improperly enhanced the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 base offense level (for the
19 U.S.C. § 1343 offense) by two levels pursuant to special offense characteristic
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i) on the ground that he used a fictitious name to obtain bank
loans and lines of credit rather than an actual name.2
Paxton’s claim that the challenged sentences are procedurally unreasonable
fails because Paxton, in pleading guilty, admitted that he used a valid Social
1
As part of Paxton’s sentences on Counts 1 through 6 and 11 through 15, the district
court ordered Paxton to make restitution in the stipulated amount of $ 1,519,856.
2
In determining the 78-97 months Guidelines sentence range, the district court, adopting
the probation office’s determination, fashioned three groups: Counts 1-6, 7-10, and 11-15, and
then grouped these groups together. The guidelines for Counts 1-6 embodied the special offense
characteristic at issue here and thus provided the highest offense level in the case—for Counts 1-
6 and 11-15.
2
Security number to obtain certain loans; the admission was contained in the factual
basis for his pleas of guilty. In short, the court appropriately applied the two-level
enhancement provided by § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i). United States v. Auguste, 392
F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2004); accord United States v. Williams, 355 F.3d 893,
898-900 (6th Cir. 2003). Paxton’s sentences on Counts 1-6 and 11-15 are
accordingly
AFFIRMED.
3