Eleventh Circuit Narrows the “Sophisticated Means” Enhancement and Clarifies Post-Dubin Aggravated-Identity-Theft Analysis
Commentary on United States v. Timothy Buchanan, 22-14195 (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In United States v. Timothy Buchanan, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit confronted a garden-variety check-cashing conspiracy that raised far-from-garden-variety questions about (i) the reach of the 18 U.S.C. § 1028A aggravated-identity-theft statute after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Dubin v. United States and (ii) the proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines’ “sophisticated means” enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)) after the 2015 textual change that made the enhancement defendant-specific.

Timothy Buchanan—hired as the “white guy” who could walk into banks and cash forged checks—was convicted of conspiracy, access-device crimes, forged-securities offenses, stolen-mail offenses, and aggravated identity theft, and received a 116-month sentence plus restitution. On appeal he attacked his convictions for insufficiency of the evidence, his aggravated-identity-theft conviction under Dubin, the sophisticated-means enhancement, and the restitution amount.

The appellate court affirmed all convictions but vacated the sentence in two respects: (1) the district court applied the sophisticated-means enhancement without the defendant-specific findings that the amended guideline now requires; and (2) the court failed to make adequate findings tying two January 27, 2022 checks to Buchanan for restitution purposes. By doing so, the Eleventh Circuit set two significant signposts: (a) post-Dubin, use or possession of a victim’s identity remains “at the crux” of a § 1028A violation where the fraud depends on impersonation; and (b) sentencing courts must link the defendant’s own conduct—not merely the scheme’s complexity—to the “sophisticated means” label.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Convictions affirmed. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, supported aiding-and-abetting liability on possession counts and, under plain-error review, supported the § 1028A conviction after Dubin.
• Sophisticated-means enhancement vacated. The district court conflated the overall scheme’s sophistication with Buchanan’s personal conduct; applying superglue to one’s fingertips and cashing pre-fabricated checks is not “especially complex” without more.
• Restitution partially vacated. The district court did not make findings as to when Buchanan joined the conspiracy; losses pre-dating his entry may not be attributable to him.
• Case remanded for resentencing consistent with the above corrections.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) – Provided the aiding-and-abetting framework: participation with full knowledge suffices even without direct possession.
• Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000) – Enumerated the three prongs for aiding-and-abetting liability; the court applied these prongs to Counts II, III & VI.
• Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023) – Held that § 1028A requires use of a means of identification “at the crux” of criminality; Buchanan is the Eleventh Circuit’s first detailed application to possession cases.
• Gladden, 78 F.4th 1232 (11th Cir. 2023) – Established that erroneous jury instructions using “facilitate” language are plain after Dubin; distinguished here because Buchanan did not raise an instruction challenge.
• Bell, 112 F.4th 1318 (11th Cir. 2024), Wheeler, 16 F.4th 805 (11th Cir. 2021) – Examples where the sophisticated-means enhancement remains proper; Buchanan relied on them to argue the district court went too far in his case.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The panel reiterated that constructive possession and aiding-and-abetting liability allow conviction even where the defendant never physically touched the contraband. Buchanan’s repeated admissions, text traffic, and frontline role as check-casher were enough for the jury. Importantly, the court treated possession-based charges as “continuing offenses,” meaning later joiners can still be liable for ongoing possession (cf. Maher, 955 F.3d 880).

Aggravated Identity Theft after Dubin

Under plain-error review, the court reasoned that the means of identification—the genuine signature of “M.J.G.” on a forged check—was indispensable to Buchanan’s intended fraud. Unlike in Dubin, where the patient’s identity was incidental, here impersonation was the mechanism that made the check negotiable. Therefore, the use/possession was at the statute’s “crux,” satisfying § 1028A(a)(1).

Sophisticated Means

The amended § 2B1.1(b)(10) requires two inquiries: (1) Did the offense involve especially complex means of execution or concealment? and (2) Did this defendant intentionally engage in or cause those means? The district court erred by answering only the first question. Performing relatively simple tasks—showing a forged ID and using superglue—did not, without further findings, make Buchanan’s conduct “especially intricate.”

Restitution and Temporal Causation

Restitution must be limited to loss “caused by the defendant’s conduct.” Because Guidelines commentary excludes co-conspirators’ conduct occurring before a defendant joins, the panel demanded specific findings as to Buchanan’s launch date. The record showed first contact on February 1, 2022; two checks cashed January 27, 2022 might predate him.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Sentencing Practice. District courts in the Eleventh Circuit must now make explicit, defendant-specific findings for sophisticated-means enhancements. Indicia of complexity tied solely to co-defendants (or mere identity concealment) will no longer suffice.
• Aggravated Identity Theft Litigation. Prosecutors can still charge § 1028A where identity impersonation is central, but defense counsel will invoke Buchanan to argue Dubin bars § 1028A when identity details are merely collateral.
• Restitution Calculations. The ruling underscored that losses must track a defendant’s entry point into a conspiracy; courts must develop the record or risk reversal.
• White-Collar Investigations. Agents and AUSAs should collect precise timelines of each conspirator’s involvement; failure to do so jeopardizes enhancements and restitution downstream.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Aiding and Abetting (§ 2). You can be guilty even if someone else physically commits the crime, so long as you intentionally help. Think of the getaway driver in a robbery.
• Constructive Possession. Having the power and intent to control an item, even if it’s not in your pocket (e.g., drugs hidden in your car trunk that you know are there).
• Aggravated Identity Theft (§ 1028A). A two-year mandatory sentence for misusing another person’s identity during and in relation to certain felonies; after Dubin, the identity misuse must be the heart of the wrongdoing, not incidental.
• Sophisticated Means Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)). Adds two offense levels if the fraud was executed or concealed through especially intricate steps (layered banking, shell companies, hacking, etc.) and the specific defendant engaged in or caused those steps.
• Plain-Error Review. When an issue was not properly preserved in district court, the appellate court will correct only errors that are clear (“plain”) and affect substantial rights.
• Relevant Conduct. For sentencing and restitution, a defendant is accountable for acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the jointly undertaken activity, but not for acts that happened before he joined.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Buchanan delivers two instructive holdings. First, in a post-Dubin world, § 1028A remains potent where fraudulent impersonation is integral, and the Eleventh Circuit became the first to acknowledge that possession of a victim’s identity can satisfy the “crux” requirement when the fraud hinges on that possession. Second, the court insisted on a defendant-centric analysis for the sophisticated-means enhancement, reinforcing that sentencing consequences cannot ride on co-conspirators’ machinations alone.

Practitioners should heed the decision: prosecutors must tie enhancements and restitution to a defendant’s personal conduct and timeline; defense counsel now have a blueprint for challenging boilerplate sophisticated-means findings; and district judges have clear marching orders on the factual specificity required to support complex-fraud penalties. In that sense, Buchanan meaningfully calibrates white-collar sentencing within the Eleventh Circuit while preserving the force of § 1028A against truly identity-based frauds.