United States v. Cassandra Harris Parker

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 1 of 18

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10846

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CASSANDRA HARRIS PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cr-00123-TES-SMD-7

____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Parker appeals her sentence of 37 months’

imprisonment imposed after she entered an open plea of guilty to

conspiracy to commit federal program theft and theft concerning

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 2 of 18

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

programs receiving federal funds. She argues that the district court

erred in applying several sentencing guidelines offense-level

increases, including (1) a ten-level loss amount enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), (2) a four-level leader or organizer

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and (3) a two-level abuse

of trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Additionally, for the

first time on appeal, she argues that the district court plainly erred

in applying a two-level increase under both U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and § 3B1.3 based on the same conduct. After

review, we affirm the enhancements related to the loss amount and

Parker’s leadership role. However, we agree that Parker was

ineligible for the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 enhancement because the

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) enhancement was based on the same

conduct. Because this error affected the guidelines range, we

vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

I. Background

A grand jury indicted Parker and several co-conspirators

with conspiracy to commit federal program theft, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One), and theft concerning programs

receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1) (Count

Five). She entered an open guilty plea to both counts before a

magistrate judge. As part of her plea colloquy, Parker admitted

that, between 2016 and 2020, she conspired with others to

embezzle, steal, or otherwise fraudulently obtain more than $5,000

from her employer Tuskegee University, and that Tuskegee

University received more than $10,000 in federal funding per year.

Specifically, Parker knowingly created fraudulent purchase orders

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 3 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 3

showing money owed to her co-conspirators and then used those

purchase orders to generate legitimate checks for her

co-conspirators. The co-conspirators would then cash the checks,

and they would split the money with Parker and other

co-conspirators. As part of this conspiracy, she also recruited at

least four people to participate. Additionally, she admitted that the

individuals who recruited her had their own separate check-

cashing scheme, but that she was unaware of these schemes when

she was recruited in 2016, and she did not share in the proceeds

from those separate schemes. She admitted that she knew the

purpose of the scheme and that it was illegal. The magistrate judge

recommended that the district court accept Parker’s plea, and the

district court adopted the recommendation.

Prior to sentencing, the United States Probation Office

prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). According to

the PSI, the fraud scheme began in 2007 or 2008 when

co-conspirators and fellow Tuskegee employees Wanda Hairston

and Cynthia Kitt started submitting fraudulent travel

reimbursements for Morris Welch (Hairston’s boyfriend), who was

neither a student nor an employee of Tuskegee. At a later,

unspecified date, Parker, who was the purchasing manager at

Tuskegee, “came forward wishing to participate in the scheme.”

Parker recruited Lanequia Cooper, Ledaryl Johnson, Abraham

Wright, and Keyonn Cannon, who were friends of her son, into the

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 4 of 18

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

conspiracy.1 Additionally, Hairston’s sister, Phyllis Tyner, was

involved in the conspiracy. None of them had any ties to

Tuskegee, nor were they entitled to any payments. Cooper

received a total of $27,150, Wright received $40,700, Johnson

received $39,000, Cannon received $34,700, and Tyner received

$58,165.58. To execute the scheme, Kitt and Parker created the

purchase orders and sent them to the accounts payable

department. When the checks were ready, Hairston or Kitt

notified Parker, and Parker retrieved the checks and delivered

them to her co-conspirators to be cashed. Parker explained that the

person who cashed the check received $300 and Parker received

the rest of the money, which she typically then split with Kitt and

Hairston.2 As part of the scheme, they also occasionally forged

signatures on documents. In total, Tuskegee lost $394,115.38.

The probation office determined that the loss amount

attributable to Parker was $239,281.40, “based on the loss amounts

for the individuals recruited by Parker, and the checks cashed by

Welch and Tyner that Parker assisted with obtaining by joining the

conspiracy in 2016.” Based on this loss amount, Parker received a

1 Two other Tuskegee employees stated that Parker propositioned them to

join the conspiracy, but they did not do so.

2 Other check cashers in the conspiracy reported receiving either $300, $400,

$500, or $800 for each check cashed. Meanwhile, Janet Moss-Smith, the Title

III Grants Director at Tuskegee, “stated that she was paid $2,000 to $3,000 for

signing the paperwork that allowed the fraudulent checks to be issued.”

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 5 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 5

ten-level guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F).3

Parker also received a four-level increase for being an organizer or

leader of a conspiracy that involved five or more people under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Finally, she received a two-level increase

under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) “[b]ecause the offense involved a

misrepresentation that [she] was acting on behalf of an educational

organization,” and another two-level increase under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public or private trust. Her total

adjusted offense level of 21 and her criminal history category of I

resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 37 to 46 months’

imprisonment.

Parker raised several objections to the PSI. First, she

objected to the loss amount attributed to her and the related ten-

level enhancement, arguing that she should not be held responsible

for the amounts received by Welch and Tyner because she did not

know they were involved in the conspiracy, and she did not share

in the proceeds with them. Parker maintained that she should be

responsible only for the monies received by the individuals she

recruited, which would have resulted in a lower eight-level

enhancement. Second, she objected to the four-level organizer or

leader enhancement, arguing that she was not the organizer or

leader and that she knew nothing about the check cashing scheme

that Hairston ran with Welch and Tyner. Third, she objected to

3 Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) provides that the offense level is increased by ten levels

if the loss exceeded $150,000 but was less than $250,000. U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(F).

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 6 of 18

6 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

the two-level increase based on the offense involving a

misrepresentation that she was acting on behalf of Tuskegee. She

maintained that “none of the factual statements in the

[c]ommentary for [that] section applie[d] to [her].”

Parker submitted a sentencing memorandum in which she

asserted that she was due for a downward variance to a sentence of

probation or home confinement because she was not the

mastermind of the conspiracy. Parker argued that Kitt and

Hairston were the true leaders of the scheme, as they participated

in it for nearly a decade before Parker became involved.

Additionally, she contended that Kitt and Hairston recruited Welch

and Tyner into the scheme and that she had no idea who they

were, and she did not assist in procuring the checks cashed by

Welch and Tyner. She further emphasized that she had cooperated

with authorities and had accepted full responsibility for her actions.

Next, she reiterated her objections to the PSI. Finally, she argued

that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors supported a

downward variance. 4 The government opposed her request and

argued for a 39-month sentence.

At the sentencing hearing, Parker reiterated her objection

that the loss amount attributed to her accounted for two

co-conspirators (Welch and Tyner) whom she did not know and

who had been recruited by and worked solely with Kitt and

Hairston. Accordingly, she maintained that she should not be held

4 Parker submitted letters of support from friends and family that attested to

her good character and her remorse.

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 7 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 7

responsible for the monies Welch and Tyner received and that she

should have received the lesser eight-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(E). 5 The government maintained that

Parker was liable for “the full amount of the conspiracy from the

moment that she joined” and that it was reasonably foreseeable

that there were potentially other unknown individuals involved in

the scheme because the scheme had been going on for almost a

decade when she joined it. The district court agreed with the

government and overruled her objection.

As for the leader or organizer enhancement, Parker argued

that she was not a leader or organizer of the whole conspiracy,

emphasizing that she “supervised” only the four individuals she

recruited and that the conspiracy had been going on for more than

a decade by the time Parker joined. She argued that she should

instead qualify for the lesser three-point “manager/supervisor”

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The government argued

that Parker was a leader or organizer because “she more than

doubled the size of the conspiracy” by recruiting four people and

actively “manag[ing] the activities of those individuals.” The

district court overruled Parker’s objection.

Next, Parker argued that the two-level increase under

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) for misrepresentation was inappropriate

because she did not act on behalf of the university while engaging

5 Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(E) provides for an eight-level increase to the offense level

if the loss is more than $95,000 but less than $150,000. U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(E).

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 8 of 18

8 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

in the conspiracy. Rather, Parker argued that the commentary to

the guideline demonstrated that the enhancement was appropriate

only when a person holds themselves out as working for or on

behalf of an educational institution to obtain a benefit on behalf of

the institution but then diverts all or part of that benefit. The

district court overruled the objection, concluding that the

examples in the commentary to the guideline were “non[-

]exhaustive” and that the enhancement was appropriate because

Parker “absolutely took advantage of the fact that she was an

education institution employee.”

Finally, Parker argued that she did not qualify for an abuse

of trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 because “[s]he did not

use any specialized skill in what she was doing.” Rather, Parker

simply requested checks and was directed by Kitt and Hairston as

to the amount and where to draw the checks from. The

government, in turn, noted that Parker had not raised an objection

to this enhancement in her objections to the PSI, and, therefore, it

was arguably waived. Regardless, the government argued that

Parker qualified for the enhancement because she used her position

with the university to sign paperwork and falsify documents and

her position was “integral” to “the continued fraud.” The district

court overruled Parker’s objection on the merits, concluding that

she had abused her position with the university.

Accordingly, the district court determined that the advisory

guidelines range was 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment consistent

with the PSI calculations. After hearing arguments as to the

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 9 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 9

appropriate sentence and testimony from Parker’s character

witnesses and considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the

district court imposed a total sentence of 37 months’ imprisonment

to be followed by three years of supervised release. This appeal

followed.

II. Standard of Review

Generally, “[w]e review the interpretation and application

of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and we review underlying

findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Jackson, 997 F.3d

1138, 1140 (11th Cir. 2021). “For a factual finding to be clearly

erroneous, this court, after reviewing all of the evidence, must be

left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137

(11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). “A factual finding cannot be

clearly erroneous when the factfinder [chooses] between two

permissible views of evidence.” United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d

1298, 1317 (11th Cir. 2015). The government bears the burden of

proving the application of the guideline enhancements by a

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Victor, 719 F.3d

1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013).

Where the defendant failed to raise the specific objection to

his sentence in the district court that he now raises on appeal, we

review the claim for plain error only. United States v. Ramirez-Flores,

743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014).

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 10 of 18

10 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

III. Discussion

Parker argues that her sentence is procedurally

unreasonable because the district court erred in applying (1) the

ten-level loss amount enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1);

(2) the four-level leader or organizer enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a); and (3) the two-level abuse of trust enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Additionally, she argues for the first time on

appeal that the district court plainly erred in imposing a guidelines

level increase under both U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and 3B1.3

based on the same conduct. We address each argument in turn.

A. The loss amount enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1

Parker argues that she should have been held responsible

only for the monies received by the four people that she recruited

and that she should not have been held responsible for the monies

attributed to Welch and Tyner because she had no knowledge of,

or connection to, those individuals or their activities. And because

she had no knowledge of or connection to Welch and Tyner, she

maintains that their actions were not reasonably foreseeable.

Accordingly, she asserts that she should have qualified for the lesser

eight-level loss amount increase as opposed to the ten-level

increase.

We review the district court’s determination regarding the

loss amount for clear error. United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202,

1232 (11th Cir. 2015). “The Sentencing Guidelines do not require

a precise determination of loss. Instead, a sentencing court need

only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 11 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 11

information.” Id. (alteration adopted) (quotations and citation

omitted).

The Sentencing Guidelines for fraud and theft offenses

provide that if the district court finds that the loss amount exceeds

$150,000 but is less than $250,000, the offense level must be

increased by 10 levels. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F). If the amount of

loss exceeds $95,000 but is less than $150,000, the offense level

should be increased by 8. Id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(E).

When calculating the guidelines range, the district court

must consider all relevant conduct. United States v. Siegelman, 786

F.3d 1322, 1332 (11th Cir. 2015). Where a case involves jointly

undertaken criminal activity, relevant conduct includes “all acts

and omissions of others that were (i) within the scope of the jointly

undertaken criminal activity, (ii) in furtherance of that criminal

activity, and (iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that

criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). “Thus, the district

court may hold participants in a conspiracy responsible for the

losses resulting from the reasonably foreseeable acts of

co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v.

Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2003).

Here, the district court did not clearly err in determining the

loss amount and imposing the ten-level increase. The evidence

showed that Parker was a key member of the conspiracy and

actively involved in recruiting four check cashers and in issuing the

necessary documentation for the checks. See United States v.

Wheeler, 16 F.4th 805, 830 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[A] defendant is liable

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 12 of 18

12 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

for the total loss amount of the conspiracy when she is actively

involved in furthering the conspiracy’s overall objective.”).

Although she may not have recruited or otherwise been aware of

Welch and Tyner, she knew that the conspiracy had been ongoing

for almost a decade when she joined, which necessarily meant that

it was reasonably foreseeable that there were other check cashers

involved in the conspiracy who continued to be involved after

Parker joined. Thus, the acts of Welch and Tyner were reasonably

foreseeable even if Parker did not know who they were or that they

were involved, and the district court properly held her liable for the

loss amounts attributed to them. 6 See Hunter, 323 F.3d at 1319;

Wheeler, 16 F.4th at 830.

6 Parker argues that her role is similar to that of the defendant in United States

v. Chitty, 15 F.3d 159 (11th Cir. 1994), such that she should not be held liable

for the acts committed by Welch and Tyner. Her argument is unpersuasive.

We held that the defendant in Chitty was not responsible for additional

shipments in a drug conspiracy because he had isolated, minimal involvement

in a single marijuana shipment and there was no evidence that he knew of the

conspiracy’s past operations or had any knowledge of how the conspiracy

operated or of any later shipments. Id. at 162. Nor was he involved in or

otherwise connected to any later drug shipments. Id. Parker’s role bears no

resemblance to that of Chitty. Parker played an active role in the fraud

conspiracy, was integral to its success, and had knowledge of both past and

present operations. The simple fact that she may not have known of the

identities of everyone involved does not minimize her role.

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 13 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 13

B. Leader or organizer enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a)

Parker argues that the district court erred in determining

that she held a leader or organizer role in the conspiracy and

applying a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). She

maintains that Hairston and Kitt were the true leaders and

organizers and that she should have received the lesser three-point

enhancement as a manager or supervisor under § 3B1.1(b).

“A defendant’s role as an organizer or leader is a factual

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

426 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005). Section 3B1.1 prescribes a

four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or

leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more

participants,” or a three-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was

a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the

criminal activity involved five or more participants or was

otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), (b). To qualify for the

enhancement, “the defendant need only have been ‘the organizer,

leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.’”

United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018)

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. (n.2)). 7 We determine whether a

7 In United States v. Dupree, we held that courts “may not defer” to the

commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines “if uncertainty does not exist” in

the guideline itself. 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (quotation

omitted). However, here, both parties rely on the commentary and do not

dispute its validity. Thus, we will rely upon it as well in determining whether

the district court properly applied the various enhancements. See United States

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 14 of 18

14 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

defendant was an organizer or leader by considering the following

several factors:

(1) the exercise of decision making authority,

(2) the nature of participation in the commission

of the offense, (3) the recruitment of accomplices,

(4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits

of the crime, (5) the degree of participation in

planning or organizing the offense, (6) the nature

and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) the degree

of control and authority exercised over others.

Id. (quotations omitted). Importantly, these factors are just offered

for the court’s consideration, and “[t]here is no requirement that

all of the considerations have to be present in any one case.” United

States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1231 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations

omitted). “In many of the cases where we have affirmed a finding

that a defendant played a leadership or organizational role under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), there was evidence that the defendant had

recruited participants, had instructed participants, or had wielded

decision-making authority.” Id. (collecting cases).

Here, the district court did not clearly err in determining

that Parker was a leader or organizer of the conspiracy. The

evidence established that the overall conspiracy involved more

than five people and that Parker recruited four cash checkers into

the conspiracy. Furthermore, the evidence established that Parker

v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 & n.2, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023) (relying on the

commentary to a guideline where “[n]o party contest[ed] the commentary’s

validity . . . or the propriety of its interpretation of [the guideline’s] text”).

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 15 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 15

directed and supervised the actions of the four people she recruited

and collected the money from them after they cashed the checks.

Although Parker argues that there was no evidence that she

“shared in the proceeds to a greater extent than other individuals,”

the evidence established that she received a much larger portion of

the proceeds than the check cashers did, which further

demonstrates her leadership role in the conspiracy. Indeed, Parker

split the proceeds from the checks cashed by her recruits equally

with the individuals who she claimed led the conspiracy, Hairston

and Kitt, which also tends to demonstrate that Parker had a

leadership role in the conspiracy. Thus, several of the factors that

indicate a leadership or organizer role were present in this case, and

the district court did not err in its determination. See Shabazz, 887

F.3d at 1222; Caraballo, 595 F.3d at 1231.

C. Application of both the abuse-of-trust enhancement

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 and the misrepresentation

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)

For the first time of appeal, Parker argues that the district

court plainly erred in applying a two-level enhancement for abuse-

of-trust under § 3B1.3 and misrepresentation under U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) because the commentary to § 2B1.1 specifies that

if the enhancements are based on the same conduct then a

defendant is ineligible to receive enhancements under both

provisions.8

8 Relatedly, Parker also argues the district court erred in applying the abuse-

of-trust enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. However, we need not address

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 16 of 18

16 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

To establish plain error, Parker must show that “(1) an error

occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) it affected [her] substantial

rights; and (4) it seriously affected the fairness of the judicial

proceedings.” Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d at 822. To show that a

sentencing error affected her substantial rights, she must “show a

reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the

proceeding would have been different.” Molina-Martinez v. United

States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016) (quotations omitted). Generally, a

“court’s reliance on an incorrect [sentencing] range in most

instances will suffice to show an effect on the defendant’s

substantial rights.” Id. at 201. If a defendant satisfies the first three

prongs of the plain error test, we may exercise our discretion to

correct the error “if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993) (alteration adopted) (quotations omitted).

A plan error in the calculation of the guidelines that affects a

defendant’s substantial rights will generally satisfy this fourth

prong. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 139–42 (2018).

this issue because, even assuming arguendo that she qualified for the

enhancement, as we explain further in this opinion, the guidelines provide that

if the two-level increase for misrepresentation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)

is based on the same conduct as the conduct that forms the basis for an

adjustment under § 3B1.3, then the § 3B1.3 enhancement should not apply.

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. (n.8(E)(i)). Because we conclude that Parker’s

enhancements under § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and § 3B1.3 were based on the same

conduct, it necessarily follows that § 3B1.3 should not have applied. Id.

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 17 of 18

25-10846 Opinion of the Court 17

Section 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) provides for a two-level

enhancement for a defendant convicted of a theft or fraud offense

“[i]f the offense involved[, in relevant part,] a misrepresentation

that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable, educational,

religious, or political organization, or a government agency.”

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A). The commentary to § 2B1.1, however,

states that “[i]f the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement

under subsection (b)(9)(A) is the only conduct that forms the basis

for an adjustment under § 3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use

of Special Skill) do not apply that adjustment under § 3B1.3.” Id.

§ 2B1.1, cmt. (n.8(E)(i)).

Here, Parker’s PSI indicated that the abuse-of-trust

enhancement under § 3B1.3 applied because “Parker used her

position as the Purchasing Manager at Tuskegee University to

commit this offense.” As for the misrepresentation enhancement

under § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A), the PSI indicated that it applied “[b]ecause

the offense involved a misrepresentation that the defendant was

acting on behalf of an educational organization.” Thus, the PSI

indicated that both enhancements were based on the same

conduct. Moreover, there is no indication from the sentencing

hearing that the district court found that the two enhancements

were supported by different conduct. Thus, the district court’s

application of both enhancements based on the same conduct

constituted plain error. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. (n.8(E)(i)).

This error affected Parker’s substantial rights. If she had not

received a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1, her total offense

USCA11 Case: 25-10846 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 18 of 18

18 Opinion of the Court 25-10846

level would have been 19, which would have resulted in an

advisory guidelines range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment

instead of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G., ch. 5, pt.

A (Sentencing Table). There is no indication in the record that the

district court would have imposed the same sentence under a

different guidelines range. Thus, Parker has shown that the error

affected both her substantial rights and the fairness and integrity of

the judicial proceeding. Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 201; Rosales-

Mireles, 585 U.S. at 139–42. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence,

and we remand for resentencing.

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s

application of the loss amount and leadership enhancements under

the sentencing guidelines. However, because the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3

abuse-of-trust enhancement and the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)

misrepresentation enhancement were based on the same conduct,

the district court should not have applied the § 3B1.3 enhancement.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing

consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED AND REMANDED

FOR RESENTENCING.