USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALLEN LAMIN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:20−cr−00044−PX−1)

Submitted: October 3, 2022 Decided: November 8, 2022

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, Cullen MacBeth, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Rajeev R. Raghavan, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer L. Wine, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:

After over a year of stealing blank money orders from United States Post Offices,

forging fake amounts on them, and then depositing them under fake identities and fictitious

entities, Allen Lamin was arrested and pled guilty to five counts of bank fraud, in violation

of

. The district court found that these fraudulent acts involved

“sophisticated means,” so it imposed a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Lamin was sentenced to 84 months in prison, and the district court

entered a forfeiture order of $62,900 against him. He now appeals the sentence

enhancement, asserting that his acts of fraud were no more intricate or complex than typical

bank fraud, and the forfeiture order, claiming that the government introduced no evidence

that Lamin actually obtained the funds at issue. The district court did not err in either

respect, so we affirm.

I.

Between February 2019 and April 2020, Allen Lamin repeatedly committed bank

fraud. His modus operandi was to enter United States Post Offices, steal blank postal

money orders, alter them by using a printer to affix legitimate issue dates and USPS unit

numbers, and then negotiate with several financial institutions to deposit the money orders

under false names, fictitious entities, and stolen identities. Lamin often forged the money

orders to be worth between $800 and $1,000. Once the illicit funds had been deposited,

Lamin would use the accounts for personal use. See United States v. Lamin, No. CR PX-

20-44,

at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2021). Lamin began his criminal enterprise

in Maryland, but was later arrested in Texas, where he fled to avoid law enforcement and

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 3 of 6

continue defrauding banks.

After stealing blank orders from roughly half a dozen post

offices, altering hundreds of money orders, and depositing them across several financial

institutions, Lamin raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in ill-gotten gains.

Lamin was charged with five counts of bank fraud in violation of

,

to which he pled guilty. At sentencing, the district court applied a 12-level enhancement

because the loss attributable to Lamin was more than $250,000, a 2-level enhancement

because Lamin’s offense involved 10 or more victims, and a 2-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because Lamin’s offense involved sophisticated means. J.A.

282–94. Lamin also received a 2-level acceptance of responsibility reduction. The district

court calculated a final offense level of 21 and sentenced him to a within-Guidelines

sentence of 84 months in prison. The district court also entered a $62,900 forfeiture money

order against Lamin, which represented the proceeds Lamin had obtained as a result of his

scheme to defraud. J.A. 111.

II.

Lamin appeals on two issues. First, he challenges the sentence enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), arguing that his offense did not involve sophisticated means.

Second, Lamin contests the district court’s forfeiture order of $62,900, asserting that the

government failed to show that Lamin actually acquired that money after it was deposited.

We address each issue in turn.

A.

“Whether a defendant’s conduct involved sophisticated means is a factual inquiry

that we review for clear error.” United States v. Savage,

(4th Cir. 2018)

3 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 4 of 6

(quoting United States v. White,

(4th Cir. 2017)). The bank fraud

guidelines apply a 2-level enhancement for offenses involving “sophisticated means” when

the “defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated

means.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). For the means to be sophisticated, they must be

“especially complex or especially intricate.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.9(B). This Court has

held that the enhancement is appropriate “when there is proof of complexity beyond the

minimum conduct required to establish” a bank fraud violation “in its simplest form.”

Savage,

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Lamin’s offenses went well beyond simple bank fraud. Lamin’s behavior for

over a year evinced a sophisticated and intricate method of meticulously altering blank

money orders and negotiating with numerous financial institutions to deposit the funds

under a web of fake names, stolen identities, and fictious entities. Lamin argues that these

actions were quite ordinary, and the fact that he often repeated this process does not

increase the level of sophistication.

Lamin’s argument goes against our clear guidance: Courts are to weigh the

“cumulative impact of the criminal conduct, for the total scheme may be sophisticated in

the way all the steps were linked together.” United States v. Jinwright,

(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Lamin executed a scheme involving

various post offices, at least ten victims, a handful of fictitious entities, numerous bank

accounts, several financial institutions, and multiple states for approximately 14 months.

What might appear simple in isolation here becomes complex in combination. Thus, the

district court did not clearly err in its finding of “sophisticated means.”

4 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 5 of 6

B.

Regarding whether we must reverse the $62,900 forfeiture order, there is a dispute

over the standard of review. Lamin argues that he properly challenged the order at the

district court level, and we should therefore review this issue de novo. The government

asserts that Lamin failed to raise it before the district court, and we should therefore review

this issue for plain error. The standard of review is of no consequence, however, because

the district court did not err in any respect.

In imposing a sentence for bank fraud, the district court “shall order that the person

forfeit to the United States any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds the person

obtained directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.”

(a)(2)(A). The

district court “must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to

pay.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A). District courts are “afforded broad discretion in

calculating illicit gains based on the circumstances of a case.” United States v. Walters,

(2d Cir. 2018). To establish whether a defendant’s illicit gains are subject

to forfeiture, the district court must ask whether the defendant had “dominion and control”

over the money at issue. In re Bryson,

(4th Cir. 2005).

Applying this test, the district court found that Lamin’s ability to make deposits into

various bank accounts demonstrated “dominion and control” over the money at issue, for

it showed that Lamin had “obtained the proceeds of a crime when he put[] the money” into

various bank accounts. J.A. 330. Relying on Honeycutt v. United States, Lamin argues that

the government did not prove he ever withdrew the funds, and thus it cannot show he

“actually acquired” that money.

(2017). But Lamin’s reliance on

5 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4547 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 6 of 6

Honeycutt is misguided. Rather than undermine the district court’s findings, Honeycutt

confirms that a defendant obtains property for the purposes of forfeiture when he “come[s]

into possession of” or “acquire[s]” it.

. Here, the government established—and

Lamin admits—that he deposited $62,900 worth of money orders into various bank

accounts following his acts of bank fraud. Thus, he admits that he acquired or came into

possession of $62,900. Therefore, the district court did not err in issuing the $62,900

forfeiture order.

Its judgment is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED

6