Scheme-Wide Scrutiny: United States v. Stone and the Fifth Circuit’s Refined Test for “Sophisticated Means” & “Abuse-of-Trust” Enhancements

1. Introduction

United States v. Stone, No. 24-10115 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), arose from an extraordinary fraud in which retired FBI Special Agent William Roy Stone, Jr. (“Stone”) and long-time police-department volunteer Joseph Eventino DeLeon (“DeLeon”) duped a recovering addict, C.T., out of well over a million dollars of inheritance by fabricating a “secret probation” and a gallery of fictitious judges, agents, and analysts. After a 13-day jury trial both men were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud; Stone was also convicted of multiple substantive fraud counts, money laundering, and impersonating an officer. At sentencing the district court applied two U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) enhancements—sophisticated means (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(10)(C)) to both defendants and abuse of a position of trust (U.S.S.G. §3B1.3) to DeLeon. Stone challenged only the former; DeLeon challenged virtually every aspect of the case.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Motion for new trial (DeLeon) – Denied. The panel found no ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, or error in the court’s response to a jury note.
• Sufficiency of the evidence (DeLeon) – Conviction affirmed; the plain-error standard applied because DeLeon failed to renew his Rule 29 motion.
• Cross-examination of character witnesses – No abuse of discretion or plain error; questions were permissible under Fed. R. Evid. 405(a).
• Sophisticated-means enhancement – Affirmed for both defendants. The panel emphasized a holistic, scheme-wide evaluation.
• Abuse-of-trust enhancement (DeLeon) – Affirmed; DeLeon’s feigned law-enforcement authority squarely fit Application Note 3’s example of fraudsters who invent professional status.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Miller, 906 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2018) – Chief authority for evaluating sophisticated means in the aggregate, even if some steps were unsophisticated.
• United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Connor, 537 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330 (5th Cir. 1996) – Provide the “made detection harder” benchmark for §2B1.1(b)(10)(C).
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) – Standard for ineffective assistance governed the new-trial motion.
• United States v. Salazar, 751 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) – Invited-error doctrine used to dispose of the jury-note complaint.
• United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) – Restates clear-error standard for fact-bound Guideline issues.
• United States v. Domingue, 713 F. App’x 413 (5th Cir. 2018) & United States v. McConathy, 619 F. App’x 359 (5th Cir. 2015) – Fact patterns for “abuse-of-trust” when a defendant fabricates professional status.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. New-Trial Motion – Applying Strickland, the panel held counsel’s failure to call DeLeon’s girlfriend was tactical, fell within “wide-ranging professional assistance,” and lacked prejudice.
2. Prosecutorial Closing & Jury Note – Any potential misstatement of law was cured by accurate jury instructions; DeLeon had invited the disputed response to the jury note, barring relief absent “manifest injustice.”
3. Evidence Sufficiency – The object of the conspiracy was to steal money and property; the fake probation was merely a means. Record evidence (texts, cash transfers, deception of law enforcement) plainly supported the verdict.
4. Sophisticated Means
• The enhancement focuses on the execution or concealment of the offense. Here: false judge, spoofed phone calls, satellite “ghost” lines, shadow calendars, false paper trails, cash withdrawals.
• The panel reiterated Miller’s directive to “view the scheme in its entirety,” rejecting Stone and DeLeon’s myopic “each-transaction-was-simple” argument.
5. Abuse of Trust
• Although DeLeon lacked formal authority, he created the indicia of law-enforcement power (badge, firearm, “probation officer” role).
• Application Note 3 expressly covers such counterfeit positions, and C.T.’s testimony proved her reliance on that feigned status.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Sentencing Clarity – Confirms that in fraud prosecutions the Fifth Circuit will aggregate all manipulative devices when deciding “sophisticated means,” foreclosing arguments that one defendant’s acts were individually simple.
• Expanded “Abuse-of-Trust” Reach – Signals that even community volunteers or quasi-officials can incur the §3B1.3 penalty if they fabricate or exaggerate authority to gain victims’ confidence.
• Trial Practice – Reinforces rigorous compliance with Rule 29 to preserve sufficiency challenges; underscores risks of invited-error strategy with jury questions.
• Law-Enforcement Impersonation – The opinion’s factual detail offers prosecutors a blueprint for charging both 18 U.S.C. §912 (impersonation) and guideline enhancements in tandem.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

United States v. Stone fortifies Fifth Circuit precedent that sentencing courts must appraise frauds in their totality when deciding Guideline enhancements. By affirming both the sophisticated-means and abuse-of-trust increases, the court made three doctrinal contributions:

1. It crystallized a scheme-wide lens for §2B1.1(b)(10)(C), rejecting piecemeal dissection of individual acts.
2. It confirmed that a fabricated badge can be enough to trigger §3B1.3’s abuse-of-trust penalty, even for volunteers without official titles.
3. It reiterated procedural guardrails—plain error, invited error, and Rule 29 renewal—that can silently determine appellate outcomes.

Going forward, defendants in complex fraud cases within the Fifth Circuit will face steeper hurdles when disputing these enhancements; prosecutors will cite Stone to aggregate deceptive techniques, and district courts possess reinforced authority to punish sham authority figures who prey on victims’ trust.