USA v. Perrissa Dixon

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Perrissa Dedranette Dixon. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13402
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00058-MW-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PERRISSA DEDRANETTE DIXON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 3, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Perrissa Dixon appeals the 132-month sentence she received based on her
conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343
and 1349, and aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting in violation of 18

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 2 of 8

U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. In particular, Dixon appeals the district court’s 14level enhancement for the amount of loss, under United States Sentencing
Guidelines § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), and the 2-level enhancement she received for the
production of an unauthorized access device, under § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i). After
careful review, we affirm.
I.
Dixon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343 and 1349, and aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting under 18
U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2. Dixon’s plea agreement contained a statement of
facts detailing that she and her coconspirators filed fraudulent tax returns online
using the personally identifiable information of others. When officers searched
Dixon’s home, they found personal information for about 180 people, as well as
twenty-seven debit cards obtained by using victims’ names. The debit cards were
such that they could be loaded with refunds from fraudulent tax returns filed in the
victims’ names. Victims told law enforcement they had not authorized filing the
tax returns or issuing the debit cards. In at least one case, a fax machine in Dixon’s
home was used to verify information needed for the issuance of the debit card with
the refund money on it. Dixon purchased some people’s personal information
from Katrina Pratt, who worked at Florida A&M University and had access to
students’ information. The conspiracy claimed $877,042 in fraudulent refunds,
2

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 3 of 8

and the U.S. Department of Treasury actually paid $528,153 of that amount.
$35,476.00 of the paid claims were directed or deposited into Dixon’s accounts.
The district court sentenced Dixon to consecutive prison terms of 108months for the conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 24-months for aggravated
identity theft and aiding and abetting, resulting in her 132-month sentence. The
court adopted the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), which calculated a
total offense level of 33 with a criminal history category of I for a guideline range
of 135 to 168 months on the conspiracy to commit wire fraud count. The court
imposed the below-guideline sentence of 108 months on this count. The district
court imposed a consecutive 24-month sentence for the aggravated identity theft
and aiding and abetting count. The PSR calculation for the conspiracy to commit
wire fraud count included a 14-level increase for a loss of more than $400,000
under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) (2014); a 2-level increase for the production of an
unauthorized access device under § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i); and a 4-level increase
because Dixon led a criminal activity that involved five or more participants under
§ 3B1.1(a). During the course of the sentencing hearing, the district court
overruled Dixon’s objections to the guidelines calculation. On appeal, Dixon
challenges only the loss calculation that resulted in a 14-level increase in her
guideline range, as well as the 2-level increase for production of an unauthorized

3

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 4 of 8

access device. We thus restrict our discussion of the sentencing hearing to those
rulings.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court “[found] that the Government
has more than met its burden to establish that . . . the loss [was] in excess of
[$]400,000.” In support of this decision, the district court pointed to two IP
addresses used to file the fraudulent tax returns, one linked to Dixon’s residence
and the other linked to accounts and information connected to Dixon. The court
further pointed to Pratt’s testimony that she gave students’ personal information to
Dixon, and to the tax returns filed fraudulently for those students in successive
years. The district court noted common patterns in the information put into the
fraudulent returns, including wage and withholding amounts. The court explained
none of the facts alone were dispositive, but taken together they created a
“convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence . . . that ties [Dixon] squarely to
these addresses, squarely to these tax returns, and squarely to these individuals
whose identities were being used.” The district court rejected Dixon’s argument
that she should be sentenced only for the money put into her account, saying “the
standard is clearly reasonably foreseeable acts of conspirators in furtherance of the
conspiracy.” The court noted that Dixon did not need to file or benefit from each
tax return in order for those acts to be reasonably foreseeable.

4

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 5 of 8

The district court also overruled Dixon’s objection to the 2-level increase for
production of an unauthorized access device. It noted there was evidence of
production of devices including debit cards. The court specifically listed the debit
cards found during the search of Dixon’s home, as well as two exhibits of debitcard records produced at sentencing.
II.
We review the district court’s factual findings, including the loss calculation
and the finding that Dixon produced an unauthorized access device, for clear error.
See United States v. Taylor, 818 F.3d 671, 673 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v.
Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 727–28 (11th Cir. 2014).
The district court applied the Guidelines and determined that a 14-level
increase was appropriate under USSG § 2B1.1 because there was a loss greater
than $400,000. Section 2B1.1 defines loss as the greater of actual or intended loss.
USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A). It defines actual loss as “the reasonably foreseeable
pecuniary harm” resulting from the offense. Id. cmt. n.3(A)(i). And it defines
“reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm” as monetary harm “that the defendant
knew or, under the circumstances, reasonably should have known, was a potential
result of the offense.” Id. cmt. n.3(A)(iii–iv).
The district court increased Dixon’s sentence due to her leadership role in
the conspiracy, finding she recruited others into the conspiracy. It also found that
5

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 6 of 8

Dixon got the personal information for a number of victims from Pratt. These
victims’ tax returns were filed during several years of the conspiracy, tying Dixon
to the conspiracy for at least that period of time. The district court also linked two
IP addresses used to file the fraudulent tax returns to Dixon. And the district court
pointed out common patterns in the information put into the returns, including
wage and withholding amounts.
Dixon argues the district court erred by not making sufficient individualized
findings that all the actions of the coconspirators were within the scope of the
conspiracy. She says the district court should have sentenced her based on only the
$35,476 directly in her control. Dixon also submits that ten people lived in the
residence connected to the IP address, and that there was no testimony about the
refund amounts her codefendants received.
Dixon does not demonstrate the district court clearly erred. “A district court
may hold participants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350, 1370 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
But “[a] district court must determine the scope of the defendant’s criminal activity
prior to considering all reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators.” Baldwin,
774 F.3d at 727. The district court made individualized findings about Dixon and

6

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 7 of 8

her role in the conspiracy linking her to its entire scope. Thus, the loss attributed
to the entire conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to her.
III.
The district court also enhanced Dixon’s guideline range by 2-levels for
producing an unauthorized access device. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i). This
Court’s precedent provides that unauthorized debit cards are unauthorized access
devices. Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 722, 728 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1)).
The district court found evidence of production of devices such as debit
cards. It ruled that the debit cards found at Dixon’s home together with the two
exhibits of debit-card records introduced at sentencing suggested Dixon produced
the cards.
Dixon argues these cards and records are not sufficient to conclude she
produced the cards herself. She also points out the district court did not find the
production of the cards was reasonably foreseeable to her.
We uphold this sentencing enhancement because it is clearly supported by
the record. See United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1330 (11th Cir. 2015) (per
curiam); United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938, 944 (11th Cir. 1996). The record
clearly demonstrates that the production of debit cards was reasonably foreseeable
to Dixon. See Baldwin, 774 F.3d at 728. She pleaded guilty to a conspiracy that
used victims’ personal information to file fraudulent tax returns and load their
7

Case: 15-13402

Date Filed: 01/03/2017

Page: 8 of 8

refunds onto debit cards opened in their names. Twenty-seven of these debit cards
were seized in Dixon’s home, and the fax machine in her home was used to get at
least one of these cards. The record therefore clearly includes enough evidence to
show Dixon could reasonably foresee the production of the debit cards for the
conspiracy. See USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.10(A) (“‘Production’ includes manufacture,
design, alteration, authentication, duplication, or assembly.”). The district court
did not err in sentencing Dixon.
AFFIRMED.

8