Sentencing; Whether a “Cash Express” (a payday lender providing loans & check cashing services) is considered a “financial institution” for purposes of USSG § 2B3.1(b)(1); Enhancement for being in a “leadership role” (3B1.1(c)); Reduction for “acceptance of responsibility” (§ 3E1.1(a)); Whether the government breached the plea agreement by not moving for the reduction; Procedural & substantive reasonableness

The court joined two other circuits and held that businesses such as the Cash Express at issue here, a payday lender that provides loans and check cashing services, qualify as a “financial institution” for purposes of the sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(1). Defendant-Glover robbed a Cash Express and pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery. His plea agreement provided that the government would not oppose a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a). However, it also contained the caveat that the government would not be held to this if he acted inconsistently with accepting responsibility. “Eleven days after signing his plea agreement, an image of a rat in the crosshairs of a riflescope was posted on his Facebook profile.” He did not receive the § 3E1.1(a) reduction and did receive the enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(1) and an enhancement for having a “leadership role.” He argued that a Cash Express is not a “financial institution” for purposes of § 2B3.1(b)(1). The court applied the dictionary definition of financial institution and held that a Cash Express fell under this definition. It also upheld his sentencing enhancement for being in a leadership role where he exercised control over his partner/then-girlfriend “through fear.” As to the denial of the acceptance of responsibility reduction, the “district court properly relied on the rat picture posted on Glover’s Facebook page to find that he was not entitled to the reduction.” He argued that the government breached the plea agreement by not supporting the reduction. The court disagreed. “Under the plea agreement’s terms, our inquiry turns on whether Glover engaged in conduct or made statements that permitted the government to oppose the reduction. . . . the rat picture was a sufficient indicator of a rejection of responsibility.” The court also rejected his challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Affirmed.