USA v. Calderon, No. 05-51524 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51524 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant. consolidated with No. 06-50264 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BENJAMIN CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant. ------------------Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CR-68-ALL USDC No. 5:05-CR-2 -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 05-51524 c/w No. 06-50264 -2Benjamin Rodriguez Calderon pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, on April 25, 2005, to a four-count indictment charging him with uttering counterfeit checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Rodriguez Calderon argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level adjustment for sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C). He argues that printing checks using a computer program available for purchase by anyone at a local office supply store, sending a check in the mail to purchase coins, and walking a check into a financial institution to open an account did not constitute sophisticated means. Even though certain aspects of Rodriguez Calderon s scheme were not sophisticated, the offense as a whole involved sophisticated means. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340 (5th Cir. 1996). Rodriguez Calderon has failed to show that the district court erred in imposing a two-level increase based on his use of sophisticated means during the offense. AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.