Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 2 c

U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1

Offenses Involving Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)       Base Offense Level:  9

(b)      Specific Offense Characteristics

(1)       If the face value of the counterfeit items (A) exceeded $2,500 but did not exceed $6,500, increase by 1 level; or (B) exceeded $6,500, increase by the number of levels from the table in §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) corresponding to that amount.

(2)       If the defendant (A) manufactured or produced any counterfeit obligation or security of the United States, or possessed or had custody of or control over a counterfeiting device or materials used for counterfeiting; or (B) controlled or possessed (i) counterfeiting paper similar to a distinctive paper; (ii) genuine United States currency paper from which the ink or other distinctive counterfeit deterrent has been completely or partially removed; or (iii) a feature or device essentially identical to a distinctive counterfeit deterrent, increase by 2 levels.

(3)       If subsection (b)(2)(A) applies, and the offense level determined under that subsection is less than level 15, increase to level 15.

(4)       If a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed in connection with the offense, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 13, increase to level 13.

(5)       If any part of the offense was committed outside the United States, increase by 2 levels.

 

Commentary

Statutory Provisions:  18 U.S.C. §§ 470–474A, 476, 477, 500, 501, 1003. For additional statutory provision(s), see Appendix A (Statutory Index).

Application Notes:

1.      Definitions.—For purposes of this guideline:

"Counterfeit" refers to an instrument that has been falsely made, manufactured, or altered. For example, an instrument that has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety is "counterfeit", as is a genuine instrument that has been falsely altered (such as a genuine $5 bill that has been altered to appear to be a genuine $100 bill).

"Distinctive counterfeit deterrent" and "distinctive paper" have the meaning given those terms in 18 U.S.C. § 474A(c)(2) and (1), respectively.

"United States" means each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

2.      Applicability to Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States.—This guideline applies to counterfeiting of United States currency and coins, food stamps, postage stamps, treasury bills, bearer bonds and other items that generally could be described as bearer obligations of the United States, i.e., that are not made out to a specific payee.  

3.      Inapplicability to Certain Obviously Counterfeit Items.—Subsection (b)(2)(A) does not apply to persons who produce items that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only minimal scrutiny.

Background:  Possession of counterfeiting devices to copy obligations (including securities) of the United States is treated as an aggravated form of counterfeiting because of the sophistication and planning involved in manufacturing counterfeit obligations and the public policy interest in protecting the integrity of government obligations. Similarly, an enhancement is provided for a defendant who produces, rather than merely passes, the counterfeit items.

Subsection (b)(4) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 110512 of Public Law 103–322.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective January 15, 1988 (amendment 16); November 1, 1989 (amendment 115); November 1, 1995 (amendment 513); November 1, 1997 (amendment 554);  November 1, 1998 (amendment 587); November 1, 2000 (amendments 595 and 605); November 1, 2001 (amendments 617 and 618); November 1, 2009 (amendment 731); November 1, 2015 (amendment 791).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 139 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: United States v. James Barnett Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. James Barnett Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 21× “Next, Miller contends the district court erroneously increased his base offense level' by six levels pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1 (b)(2). We agree. To the extent Miller’s assertion of error involves a challenge to the district court’s interpretation of USSG § 2B5.”
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of Am. v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere, 980 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 19× “1) Appellants also argue that the sentencing court erred, as a matter of law, by its failure to follow Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. According to appellants, Application Note 4 states: “For purposes of subsection (b)(1) [of U.”
United States v. Chad Hughes & Gary Bovey, 310 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 10× “See U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. “If the defendant manufactured or produced any counterfeit obligation or security of the United States, or possessed or had custody of or control over a counterfeit device or materials used for counterfeiting,” the district court may increase the base level…”
United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “The court thus applied the two-point increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 (b)(2)(A). After discussing Webb’s extensive history of substance abuse, the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 37 months because Webb would not have been eligible for an intensive…”
United States v. Carmen Hernandez, 325 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2003). · cites it 11× “In response, the Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 to require that an enhancement apply “[i]f any part of the offense was committed outside the United States.”
United States v. Edward E. Gregory, 345 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 13× “We are asked to determine if the district court correctly determined that the defendant possessed a gun “in connection with” his offense of conviction as defined in U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(4). The district court imposed the three-level sentencing enhancement set forth in that…”
United States v. Renard R. Butler, 777 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(a). Due to the amount of counterfeit currency found on Butler following his August 2012 traffic stop arrest, as well as the total amount of counterfeit money exchanged during the three vehicle transactions in January 2013, the PSR held Butler responsible for the…”
United States v. Bardul Taftsiou, United States of Am. v. James Taftsiou, AKA James Taft, AKA Gezim Taftsiou, James Taftsiou, 144 F.3d 287 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “The Taftsious seek some assistance from application note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 which provides, in full, that “[sjubsection (b)(2) [of § 2B5.”
United States v. Guzman-Mata, 579 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “at 1170 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 cmt. n. 4) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
United States v. Wright, 642 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 cmt. n. 1, 2. Accordingly, because the “offense conduct” Wright was charged with was altering “bearer obligations of the United States,” namely $400 in United States currency, § 2B5.”
United States v. Alonzo Fulton Hover, 293 F.3d 930 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “The Report called for enhancements based on (1) obstruction of justice (the defendant’s perjury) under U.”
United States v. Scott Allen Rhind, 289 F.3d 690 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “1999), we gave the phrase “in connection with,” contained within USSG § 2B5.1(b)(3), 2 an expansive interpretation.”
Show all 139 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(a) — 24 cases
United States v. James Barnett Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996). “Next, Miller contends the district court erroneously increased his base offense level' by six levels pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1 (b)(2). We agree. To the extent Miller’s assertion of error involves a challenge to the district court’s interpretation of USSG § 2B5.”
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of Am. v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere, 980 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). “1) Appellants also argue that the sentencing court erred, as a matter of law, by its failure to follow Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. According to appellants, Application Note 4 states: “For purposes of subsection (b)(1) [of U.”
United States v. Won Tae Kim, 896 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1990).
United States v. DeLeon, 603 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Renard R. Butler, 777 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2015). “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(a). Due to the amount of counterfeit currency found on Butler following his August 2012 traffic stop arrest, as well as the total amount of counterfeit money exchanged during the three vehicle transactions in January 2013, the PSR held Butler responsible for the…”
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of Am. v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere, 980 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). “1) Appellants also argue that the sentencing court erred, as a matter of law, by its failure to follow Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. According to appellants, Application Note 4 states: “For purposes of subsection (b)(1) [of U.”
United States v. Weast, 58 F. App'x 4 (4th Cir. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(1) — 9 cases
United States v. Bardul Taftsiou, United States of Am. v. James Taftsiou, AKA James Taft, AKA Gezim Taftsiou, James Taftsiou, 144 F.3d 287 (3rd Cir. 1998). “The Taftsious seek some assistance from application note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 which provides, in full, that “[sjubsection (b)(2) [of § 2B5.”
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of Am. v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere, 980 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). “1) Appellants also argue that the sentencing court erred, as a matter of law, by its failure to follow Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. According to appellants, Application Note 4 states: “For purposes of subsection (b)(1) [of U.”
United States v. Richard Boothe, Frank Frigenti, Sr., & Frank Frigenti, Jr., 994 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1993).
United States v. Carmen Hernandez, 325 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2003). “In response, the Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 to require that an enhancement apply “[i]f any part of the offense was committed outside the United States.”
United States v. Martinez-Varela, 531 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(1)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. Adu-Ansere Okai (8th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Robert Kemp (8th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(2) — 28 cases
United States v. James Barnett Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996). “Next, Miller contends the district court erroneously increased his base offense level' by six levels pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1 (b)(2). We agree. To the extent Miller’s assertion of error involves a challenge to the district court’s interpretation of USSG § 2B5.”
United States v. Chad Hughes & Gary Bovey, 310 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2002). “See U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. “If the defendant manufactured or produced any counterfeit obligation or security of the United States, or possessed or had custody of or control over a counterfeit device or materials used for counterfeiting,” the district court may increase the base level…”
United States v. Mario J. Taylor, 991 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1993).
United States of Am., & Cross-Appellee v. Allan Glenn Gaither, &, 1 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Wyjack, 141 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 1998).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(2)(A) — 28 cases
United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010). “The court thus applied the two-point increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 (b)(2)(A). After discussing Webb’s extensive history of substance abuse, the district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 37 months because Webb would not have been eligible for an intensive…”
United States v. Guzman-Mata, 579 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009). “at 1170 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 cmt. n. 4) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
United States v. Johnny Davis, 754 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2005).
United States v. Renard R. Butler, 777 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2015). “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(a). Due to the amount of counterfeit currency found on Butler following his August 2012 traffic stop arrest, as well as the total amount of counterfeit money exchanged during the three vehicle transactions in January 2013, the PSR held Butler responsible for the…”
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(3) — 25 cases
United States v. Scott Allen Rhind, 289 F.3d 690 (11th Cir. 2002). “1999), we gave the phrase “in connection with,” contained within USSG § 2B5.1(b)(3), 2 an expansive interpretation.”
United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Lawrence Prescott Jackson, 276 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Renard R. Butler, 777 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2015). “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(a). Due to the amount of counterfeit currency found on Butler following his August 2012 traffic stop arrest, as well as the total amount of counterfeit money exchanged during the three vehicle transactions in January 2013, the PSR held Butler responsible for the…”
United States v. Kemp, 530 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(4) — 9 cases
United States v. Edward E. Gregory, 345 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 2003). “We are asked to determine if the district court correctly determined that the defendant possessed a gun “in connection with” his offense of conviction as defined in U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(4). The district court imposed the three-level sentencing enhancement set forth in that…”
United States v. Brown, 190 F. App'x 704 (10th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Colbert, 261 F. App'x 466 (4th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Gregory (3rd Cir. 2003).
United States v. Reinoso, 232 F. App'x 294 (4th Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(5) — 10 cases
United States v. Carmen Hernandez, 325 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2003). “In response, the Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 to require that an enhancement apply “[i]f any part of the offense was committed outside the United States.”
United States v. Alonzo Fulton Hover, 293 F.3d 930 (6th Cir. 2002). “The Report called for enhancements based on (1) obstruction of justice (the defendant’s perjury) under U.”
United States v. Adu-Ansere Kwame Okai, 454 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Goncalves, 613 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Alldredge, 551 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2008).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(l) — 9 cases
United States v. Wright, 642 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 2011). “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1 cmt. n. 1, 2. Accordingly, because the “offense conduct” Wright was charged with was altering “bearer obligations of the United States,” namely $400 in United States currency, § 2B5.”
United States v. Larry Joe Ramacci, 15 F.3d 75 (7th Cir. 1994).
United States v. James Barnett Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir. 1996). “Next, Miller contends the district court erroneously increased his base offense level' by six levels pursuant to USSG § 2B5.1 (b)(2). We agree. To the extent Miller’s assertion of error involves a challenge to the district court’s interpretation of USSG § 2B5.”
United States v. Mark John Lamere, United States of Am. v. Jean-Paul Allen Lamere, 980 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1992). “1) Appellants also argue that the sentencing court erred, as a matter of law, by its failure to follow Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1. According to appellants, Application Note 4 states: “For purposes of subsection (b)(1) [of U.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Giora ESHKOL, Defendant-Appellant, 108 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1997).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(l)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Renard R. Butler, 777 F.3d 382 (7th Cir. 2015). “U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(a). Due to the amount of counterfeit currency found on Butler following his August 2012 traffic stop arrest, as well as the total amount of counterfeit money exchanged during the three vehicle transactions in January 2013, the PSR held Butler responsible for the…”
United States v. Ferdinand Edouard, 253 F. App'x 905 (11th Cir. 2007).
— U.S.S.G. §2B5.1(b)(l)(B) — 5 cases
United States v. Adu-Ansere Kwame Okai, 454 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Kemp, 530 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Stone, 143 F. App'x 970 (10th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Heath J. Kellogg, 593 F. App'x 971 (11th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Paul Carney, 498 F. App'x 417 (5th Cir. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.