USA v. Jean Lindor

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jean Mari Lindor. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 1 of 10

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14365
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-10010-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEAN MARI LINDOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 22, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 2 of 10

Jean Mari Lindor appeals his sentence of 286 months of imprisonment
following his convictions for 26 counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, nine
counts of wire fraud, id. § 1343, three counts of access device fraud, id.
§ 1029(a)(2), (b)(1), and two counts of aggravated identity theft, id. § 1028A(a)(1),
(c)(5). Lindor challenges the determination that he intended to cause a loss of more
than $7 million by submitting false claims for disaster relief, and he challenges the
reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Lindor’s charges stemmed from his operation of Noula, Inc., which he
incorporated as not for profit, but operated as for profit by charging customers
$300 to submit fraudulent claims to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility for losses
attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Investigators traced numerous
fraudulent claims to Lindor based on his signature on paperwork and his
submission of virtually identical employment verification letters, fabricated
paystubs, and hardship statements with his email address. Lindor filed 1,074
fraudulent claims requesting more than $14 million, and the Claims Facility paid
$1,994,680. Lindor also filed a personal claim for disaster unemployment relief
and submitted an employment verification letter and paystubs representing that he
had been employed in 2010, but later Lindor filed an application for naturalization
in which he disclosed that his employment had ended in 2009. The paystubs that
2

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 3 of 10

Lindor submitted with his personal claim were similar to and shared the same
sequence of check numbers as the paystubs purportedly issued by different
employers to Noula’s claimants. Investigators also discovered that Lindor had
applied for and collected $13,525 in unemployment benefits by misrepresenting
that he had been laid off from his job because of the oil spill.
When arrested, Lindor had two debit cards in his pockets containing tax
refunds issued by Turbo Tax to two persons whose social security numbers Lindor
used to file fraudulent tax returns for 2012. Investigators also discovered copies of
the two fraudulent tax returns on Lindor’s computer. An examination of Lindor’s
bank account revealed that he also had received tax refunds issued to two other
persons. The four fraudulent tax returns resulted in a loss of $8,567.
A jury found Lindor guilty of all the crimes charged. Lindor’s presentence
investigation report classified his 26 counts of mail fraud, 3 counts of wire fraud,
and 3 counts of access device fraud as one group related to the false claims
submitted to the Claims Facility, and the report classified Lindor’s remaining 6
counts of wire fraud as a second group related to his fraudulent claims for
unemployment benefits. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2
(Nov. 2012). For group one, the report increased Lindor’s base offense level by 20
levels for a loss amount between $7 and $20 million, id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K), and
added another two levels because Lindor obstructed justice by testifying falsely
3

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 4 of 10

that the fraud was committed by a former employee who was an ordained minister
and by a cousin who resembled Lindor, despite testimony from Lindor’s father that
the cousin had not left Haiti in 18 years, id. § 3C1.1. For group two, the report
increased Lindor’s base offense level by 4 levels for a loss amount between
$10,000 and $30,000. Id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C). The two groups had a combined
adjusted offense level of 33.
With a criminal history under category I, the report provided an advisory
guideline range between 135 and 168 months of imprisonment. The report also
provided that Lindor faced a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years for each
count of mail fraud and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a maximum statutory
sentence of 10 years for each count of access device fraud, id. § 1029(a)(2),
(c)(1)(A)(i). The report excluded Lindor’s two convictions for aggravated identity
theft from the groupings, U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1(b)(2), and the report provided that
Lindor faced a mandatory a two-year sentence for each conviction and that the
sentences had to run consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2).
Lindor objected to the presentence report on three grounds relevant to this
appeal. First, he challenged the 20-level increase of his base offense level and
argued that he did not cause any loss because he was innocent and, alternatively,
that the loss amount was less than $2 million. Second, Lindor denied making 1,074
4

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 5 of 10

false claims and argued that anyone could have used the Noula email address; the
presentence report failed to identify each fraudulent claim or to describe how he
was connected to each claim; and another Noula employee submitted fraudulent
claims without his knowledge. Third, Lindor argued that he was only an employee
of Noula.
Lindor moved for a downward variance from his advisory guideline range.
Lindor argued that he did not profit from his fraud because the donations to Noula
aided people displaced by the oil spill and because there was no proof that he
received a percentage of the disaster relief paid to the claimants. Lindor also
argued that he was out of the office when some of the false claims were submitted.
The government presented evidence that Lindor was responsible for 430
fraudulent claims for disaster relief. Four persons testified that their personal
identification information was used without their knowledge in fraudulent claims
submitted by Noula. Robert Passero, a fraud analyst, testified about evaluating two
years of payroll data corresponding to 430 client files found on Lindor’s computer
and creating spreadsheets that matched data in those files to fraudulent claims
submitted to and paid by the Claims Facility. Passero testified that the client files
had virtually identical supporting documents consisting of a “canned hardship
letter, a canned verification of employment letter, . . . [and] copies of maps of the
Gulf of Mexico and newspaper articles related to the oil spill”; that the names of
5

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 6 of 10

the employers and amounts of paystubs on the fraudulent claims matched the data
on Lindor’s computer; that some of the claimants names had been written on signin sheets found in Noula records; and that the fraudulent claims were all based on
income lost from one of six companies, all of which denied employing any of the
claimants. Passero explained that 80 of the claims sought approximately $2.4
million in losses; he extrapolated that amount to determine the loss attributable to
other claims; and he eliminated some questionable claims, which resulted in a
reduction of the loss amount from more than $14 million to $12,764,081. Passero
also explained that some of the fraudulent claims had been submitted electronically
using the internet protocol address assigned to Noula and that the trial testimony of
a cohort proved that Lindor submitted other claims by connecting his computer to
the internet at the cohort’s apartment. To match data on fraudulent claims
submitted before Lindor stored data on his computer, Passero matched payroll
documents to the paystubs issued by Lindor’s employer in 2009. Passero also
compiled a list of checks written by Lindor on a Noula account to refund
unsuccessful claimants, and between 20 and 25 percent of the checks were written
for $300.
The district court overruled Lindor’s objections. The district court found that
the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Lindor intended to

6

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 7 of 10

cause a loss of more than $7 million. The district court also found that the 430 false
claims resulted in a loss of $12,764,081.
The district court sentenced Lindor to 286 months of imprisonment based on
his “history and characteristics”; the circumstances of his complex and “longrunning scheme” that involved large amounts of people, claims, and money; the
“significant . . . societal harm” caused by “divert[ing] [money] away from those it
was intended to help”; and the need to “discourage others who” might engage in
similar fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court imposed concurrent
sentences of 168 months for each of Lindor’s mail and wire fraud offenses and
sentenced him to 94 months for each count of access device fraud with instructions
that those sentences run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the
sentences for mail and wire fraud. The district court also sentenced Lindor to 24
months for each count of aggravated identity theft and ordered that those sentences
run concurrently with each other and consecutively to his other sentences.
According to the district court, it “imposed the top of the guideline range for [the]
counts” of mail and wire fraud, “varied upward to impose a consecutive sentence”
for the counts of access device fraud, and “imposed the mandatory consecutive
sentence” for the counts of aggravated identity theft.

7

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 8 of 10

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Two standards of review govern this appeal. We review for clear error a
finding about the amount of loss. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1197
(11th Cir. 2011). We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007).
III. DISCUSSION
Lindor challenges his sentence on three grounds. First, he argues that the
government failed to prove that he was responsible for 430 fraudulent claims and
that the district court failed to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss.
Second, Lindor argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to give notice of or explain the reason for its upward variance.
Third, Lindor argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he
was punished for “proceed[ing] to trial and testify[ing] on his own behalf.” These
arguments fail.
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Lindor intended to
inflict a loss of more than $7 million. Lindor controlled Noula’s operations and
was responsible for all the false claims filed in furtherance of his scheme to
defraud the Claims Facility. See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1256
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 310 (2014). Lindor counseled claimants and
8

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 9 of 10

submitted numerous fraudulent claims for disaster relief using employment
documents and paystubs that he fabricated. At sentencing, Passero explained how
he connected the client data stored on Lindor’s computer to 430 fraudulent claims
and how he calculated the amount of loss. Passero provided a spreadsheet that
described each fraudulent claim for disaster unemployment relief, its amount, and
whether the claim had been paid by the Claims Facility. Although Lindor was not
indicted for all the fraudulent claims for disaster relief, the uncharged claims
constituted relevant conduct, see United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316, 1336
(11th Cir. 2006), and the district court could consider that conduct in making a
reasonable estimate of the loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). Based on this
reliable and specific evidence, the district court was entitled to find that Lindor was
responsible for 430 fraudulent claims seeking $12,764,081 in disaster relief. See
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1290–92 (11th Cir. 2011). The district
court did not clearly err by enhancing Lindor’s base offense level by 20 levels for
intending to cause a loss between $7 million and $20 million. See U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1(b)(1)(K).
Lindor’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The district court “varied
upward” by exercising its discretion to order that Lindor’s multiple terms of
imprisonment run consecutively, see 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), and Lindor was not
entitled to notice that he might receive consecutive sentences. See Irizarry v.
9

Case: 13-14365

Date Filed: 05/22/2015

Page: 10 of 10

United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714–16, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 2202–04 (2008). And the
district court complied with its duty to consider the statutory sentencing factors in
determining whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences. See id.
§ 3584(b).
Lindor’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. Lindor submitted
hundreds of fraudulent claims for disaster relief to the Claims Facility with the
intent to defraud British Petroleum of millions of dollars. Lindor also fraudulently
obtained thousands of dollars in federal tax refunds and state unemployment
benefits. Lindor argues that he was impermissibly punished for exercising his right
to stand trial, but the district court explained that its sentence was intended to
achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. And the district court reasonably
determined that a sentence of 286 months of imprisonment was required to address
the extent of Lindor’s fraud and the harm caused to the public by his diversion of
disaster relief, to impose adequate punishment for his crimes, to affirm the public
trust in assistance programs, and to deter similar future misconduct. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM Lindor’s sentence.

10