Erica Hall was an office assistant at an OB/GYN office in Coral Springs, Florida. The job may not have paid well, because Ms. Hall was trying to make some extra cash on the side by selling patient information to some folks who would use it to get fake credit cards.
Ms. Hall was told by the folks the government described as her coconspirators that for every patient’s personal information she handed over, she’d be paid $200. If the information was able to be used to create a credit card that could be used, she’d be paid $1000 for that patient information.
Even though Ms. Hall handed over information for between 65 to 141 folks, and that 16 of those people had information that could be used to make fake credit cards, she was only paid $200.
If you can’t trust a co-conspirator, who can you trust.
Ms. Hall pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to identity theft, and wrongfully obtaining and transferring someone’s health information.
When the probation officer wrote her presentence report, she was given a four-level enhancement for the offense involving more than 50 victims.
Ms. Hall objected to the “more than 50 victim” enhancement – she argued that a “victim” for the purposes of the fraud guidelines, is only someone who suffers and actual loss.
The district court didn’t agree though. The district court “concluded that the intentional transfer of information in exchange for consideration constituted actual use for the purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B).”
The Eleventh Circuit, in United States v. Hall, reversed the district court and vacated the sentence based on this application of the number of victims enhancement.
First, as the court of appeals pointed out,
Application Note 4(E) provides that a “‘victim’ means (i) any victim as defined in Application Note 1; or (ii) any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or without authority.”
So, when the identity information was transferred, was that a use of the information?
The Eleventh Circuit said no:
When we apply the rules of statutory construction to the enhancement, we disagree with the district court’s interpretation. We first consider the plain meaning of the word “used” as elaborated upon in Application Note 4E. As the Supreme Court noted in Bailey, the word “use” means “to convert to one’s service,” “[t]o employ,” “to avail oneself of,” and “to carry out a purpose or action by means of.” 516 U.S. at 145, 116 S. Ct. at 506. In other words, “use” is the “application or employment of something . . . for the purpose for which it is adapted.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1681 (9th ed. 2009). “These various definitions of ‘use’ imply action and implementation.” Bailey, 516 U.S. at 145, 116 S. Ct. at 506. On the contrary, the definition of “transfer” is “[t]o convey or remove from one place or one person to another; to pass or hand over from one to another, esp. to change over the possession or control of” and “[t]o sell or give.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1636. Transfer means something distinctly different than use.
If I transfer my car to you, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I use it – I could just sign over the title. So, as the court of appeals found, transferring identity information – as Ms. Hall did – is a separate thing than using identity information – the thing that gets you the enhancement for the number of victims.
And Ms. Hall will go back for resentencing.