USA v. Jeffrey Groover

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jeffrey E. Groover. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to file a corrected brief filed by Appellant Jeffrey E. Groover is GRANTED. [7512490-2]. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 14-14523

Date Filed: 08/25/2015

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14523
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80061-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY E. GROOVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 25, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-14523

Date Filed: 08/25/2015

Page: 2 of 5

Jeffrey Groover appeals his convictions for bank fraud, conspiracy to
commit bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. He also appeals the district
court’s imposition of the sophisticated means sentence enhancement under
U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C).
Groover argues that the district court erred when it found that his wife had
actual or apparent authority to consent to law enforcement’s warrantless search of
his password-protected user account on his computer. Groover argues that he and
his wife used different accounts on the same laptop and that his was password
protected. His wife only knew the password because he had given it to her for the
limited purpose of resolving a printer problem. By password-protecting his
account, Groover argues, he demonstrated his Fourth Amendment expectation of
privacy and he did not give that up when he provided the password to his wife.
In United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S. Ct. 988, 993 (1974),
the Court held consent to search may be provided by a third party who possesses
common authority over the premises. It further refined this statement by noting
that “‘[c]ommon authority’ rests ‘on mutual use of the property by persons
generally having joint access or control for most purposes.’” Illinois v. Rodriguez,
497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S. Ct. 2793, 2797 (1990) (citation omitted). Even if the
consenting party does not in fact have the required relationship to the premises, if
the officer has an objectively reasonable, though mistaken, good-faith belief that
2

Case: 14-14523

Date Filed: 08/25/2015

Page: 3 of 5

the consent was a valid consent, there is no Fourth Amendment violation.
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 186, 110 S. Ct. at 2800; see also United States v. Brazel,
102 F.3d 1120, 1148 (11th Cir. 1997).
Here, the officers first encountered Groover’s wife after going to Groover’s
apartment and obtaining her consent to search their shared home. During that
search, the agents found Groover’s laptop and seized it. However, the agent
assigned to searching the computer’s contents told the lead agent that he needed
consent to search Groover’s password-protected account. That agent then
contacted Groover’s wife, who provided the password without hesitation. It was
objectively reasonable for the agent to believe that Groover’s wife had authority to
consent to the search given the close marital relationship, their shared use of the
computer, and her knowledge of the password; therefore, there was no Fourth
Amendment violation.
Next, Groover argues that the court’s use of the sophisticated means
enhancement was erroneous because he did not use sophisticated means to execute
or conceal his crimes. He points out that his fraud was quickly and easily
discovered by the bank because the customer he was attempting to impersonate
was a woman.
Under the sentencing guidelines, a two-level enhancement is applied to a
defendant’s offense level when the offense involved the use of sophisticated
3

Case: 14-14523

Date Filed: 08/25/2015

Page: 4 of 5

means. U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(10). According the guidelines commentary,
“sophisticated means” entails “especially complex or especially intricate offense
conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense,” and the
commentary provides as an example such conduct as “hiding assets or transactions,
or both, through the use of fictitious entities [and] corporate shells.” U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1 cmt. n.9.
Here, Groover’s scheme involved multiple steps that took several weeks to
stage and implement. Sequentially, he stole Miller’s identity, obtained her
personal identification information; posed as her at several banks and post offices;
opened bank accounts and credit cards in her name; created a fake Florida driver’s
license in her name with his picture; stopped her mail at the post office so that he
could intercept the fake credit and debit cards; linked the bank account that he
created to her existing line of credit; withdrew funds from her line of credit by
using accomplices who attempted to cash a large, fraudulent home down payment
check drawn on the newly created and fake account; and attempted to obtain a
false alibi witness. Groover had previously testified to the United States Senate
that the techniques required for stealing identities were “lengthy and technical.”
Given the evidence of the lengths to which Groover went to commit this crime, the
district court did not clearly err when it applied the enhancement.

4

Case: 14-14523

Date Filed: 08/25/2015

AFFIRMED. 1

1

Groover’s motion to file a corrected reply brief is GRANTED.

5

Page: 5 of 5