Case: 16-31107 Document: 00514282867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-31107 FILED Summary Calendar December 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GIRAY BIYIKLIOGLU, also known as Johnny Bryan, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CR-202-1 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: * A jury convicted Giray Biyiklioglu of thirteen counts of wire fraud, six counts of aggravated identity theft, two counts of tax evasion, and nineteen counts of money laundering. Biyiklioglu’s offenses arose out of a scheme to defraud PayPal, Inc., 1 by using 29 different identities to transfer funds between accounts and then dispute those transfers, resulting in credits to his * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. PayPal is a global payment processor business that allows customers to make 1 payments and send money transfers through the Internet. Case: 16-31107 Document: 00514282867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2017 No. 16-31107 accounts. As a result of that scheme, PayPal suffered a loss of more than $418,000. The district court sentenced Biyiklioglu to 192 months, the high end of the applicable Guidelines range. On his first appeal, we vacated Biyiklioglu’s conviction for five of the wire fraud counts, one aggravated identity theft count, and the two tax evasion counts and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Biyiklioglu, 652 F. App’x 274 (5th Cir. 2016). On remand, the applicable Guidelines range was 132 to 159 months. The district court again sentenced Biyiklioglu to 192 months. Proceeding pro se, Biyiklioglu now appeals that sentence on two grounds: (1) whether the district court erred by applying sentencing enhancements under the Guidelines based on (a) number of victims, (b) vulnerability of victims, (c) the production of authentication features, and (d) obstruction of justice; and (2) whether the district court’s upward variance was substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM. I Biyiklioglu argues the district court erred when it enhanced his offense level based on the number of victims, victim vulnerability, the production of an authentication feature, and obstruction of justice. Where, as here, a claim is properly preserved, this court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and Application Notes de novo. United States v. Cedillo-Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2014). However, we review a district court’s findings of fact and its application of the Guidelines to those findings for clear error only. Id. “A factual finding is ‘not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.’” Id. (quoting United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434, 457-58 (5th Cir. 2010)). “We may affirm an enhancement on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Garcia- Gonzalez, 714 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals