U.S. v. Mullins, 92-7046
| Decision Date | 04 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-7046,92-7046 |
| Citation | 996 F.2d 1170 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. W. Ray MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Thomas M. Goggans, Montgomery, AL, for defendant-appellant.
James E. Wilson, U.S. Atty., Louis V. Franklin, Sr., Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before KRAVITCH, BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Appellant W. Ray Mullins was convicted and sentenced following his guilty plea to one count of a three-count superseding indictment charging him with unlawfully transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He challenges the district court's finding that his base offense level was due to be increased for "more than minimal planning." We affirm.
Mullins, the owner of a Mississippi car dealership, acquired three new vehicles from three different Alabama dealerships, paying for each car with checks he knew to be worthless. Mullins then transported the cars to his dealership in Mississippi where he sold each of them as new vehicles.
In calculating the appropriate sentence under the Guidelines, the district court increased Mullins' base offense level by two points because the offense involved "more than minimal planning" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.2(b)(4)(B). Mullins contends that the district court erred in finding "more than minimal planning," because he argues that this "was a simple 'bad check' case" involving "typical" planning, and he took no steps to conceal his conduct. The Government argues that more than minimal planning was involved because Mullins committed the offense on three separate occasions and took affirmative steps to acquire the cars before transporting them from Alabama to Mississippi.
The Guidelines provide that more than minimal planning exists in at least three circumstances: (1) where there is "more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form"; (2) in cases "involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance was purely opportune"; or (3) where "significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n. 1(f)) (emphasis added). The commentary to the Guidelines also states in relevant part:
In a theft, going to a secluded area of the store to conceal the stolen item in one's pocket would not alone constitute more than minimal planning. However, repeated instances of such thefts on several occasions would constitute more than minimal planning.
Over a period of thirty days Mullins purchased three vehicles from three different Alabama dealerships, paying in full with three checks he knew were worthless, then transported the vehicles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USA. v. Mcoy
...v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340-41 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bridges, 50 F.3d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Rust, 976 F.2d 55, 57 (1st Cir. 9. See generally United States v. Valdez-Torres, 108 F.3d 385, 39......
-
U.S. v. Garcia
...Chaves' truck to redistribute the stolen seafood to Chaves, who then fenced the stolen merchandise. See United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (11th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (defendant's three separate purchases of vehicles with worthless checks authorizes enhancement). Further, the us......
-
U.S. v. Layne
...We are not persuaded. The defendants' actions span a period of more than one year, and this is significant. See United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (11th Cir.1993) (upholding a finding of more than minimal planning where the defendant, on three occasions, purchased cars with bad c......
-
U.S. v. Daniels, 97-9251
...We review for clear error the district court's determination that an offense involved more than minimal planning. See United States v. Mullins, 996 F.2d 1170, 1171 (1993). The same standard of review applies to the district court's amount-of-loss determination. See United States v. Norris, ......