We are persuaded by the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit, which was not convinced by a defendant's arguments that the § 2B1.1(b)(18) enhancement did not apply because the defendant was not licensed. See United States v. Elia, 579 Fed.Appx. 752, 755 (11th Cir.2014) (unpublished per curiam) (reasoning that “the term ‘investment adviser’ does not require formal licensing” in the first instance); seeU.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(18)(A)(i)-(iii). The district court did not clearly err by finding Beckman was an investment advisor and applying the enhancement.
Additionally, other circuits have applied this enchantment to defendants even if they were not licensed advisors. See United States v. Elia, 579 F. App'x. 752, 755 (11th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (“the definition of investment adviser does not depend on the defendant's formal education or licensing. Instead, the definition focuses on the defendant's business practice and how he holds himself out to investors.”)
To the contrary, as noted above, Mr. Marshall's sales of securities were part of a separate business, kept apart from law and accounting practices, and accompanied with sales brochures, separate bank accounts, payments to some of the clients, and monthly statements. Because the Government has met its burden in showing that Mr. Marshall, “for compensation, engage[d] in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or . . . for compensation and as part of a regular business, issue[d] or promulgate[d] analyses or reports concerning securities, ” § 80b-2(a)(11), the Court will overrule his objection on this issue. See also United States v. Elia, 579 Fed.Appx. 752, 755 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding that defendant was an investment adviser, for purposes of a sentencing guidelines offense where, although he had no training or license to give investment advice, he gave potential investors brochures with the logo of defendant's “investment” company, advised investors to give him funds and potential investors sent money to defendant's investment fund and gave him complete authority to make investments). As a result, the Court adopts paragraphs 63 and 93 of the PSR