USA v. Stefano Vitale, No. 17-20025 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-20025 Document: 00514563365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-20025 Summary Calendar FILED July 19, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEFANO GUIDO VITALE, also known as Steven Michael Vincent Palizzi, also known as Steven Nakayama, also known as Steve, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-68-1 Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stefano Guido Vitale was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud; one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering; one count of wire fraud; and seven counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud. He was sentenced to a total of 262 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered to pay 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 17-20025 Document: 00514563365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2018 No. 17-20025 $6,177,069.11 in restitution. In his sole claim of error on appeal, he contends that the district court erred in applying the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11) enhancement for the use or production of an authentication feature on the basis that a coconspirator used fictitious Internal Transaction Numbers. We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 2017). Vitale does not brief the district court’s application of the § 2B1.1(b)(11) enhancement on the alternative basis that he used an authentication feature by using someone else’s driver’s license as an identification document in an attempt to defraud a factoring company. He has therefore waived any challenge to the application of the enhancement on this alternative basis. See United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327, 336 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016). Moreover, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement on this alternative § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 basis. See
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.
