” Id. While a district court's factual findings underlying its application of the enhancement are reviewed for clear error, see United States v. Wilson, 345 F.3d 447, 449 (6th Cir.2003), “[t]he district court's conclusion that skills possessed by a defendant are ‘special’ within the meaning of the Guideline ... is a mixed finding of law and fact that this court reviews de novo.” United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir.2000); see United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.2008). Reichert contends that his skills are not “special” within the meaning of § 3B1.3. Emphasizing that he is a truck driver with only a high school diploma, Reichert points to § 3B1.3, cmt. n. 4, which explains, “ ‘Special skill’ refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.”
" Id. While a district court's factual findings underlying its application of the enhancement are reviewed for clear error, see United States v. Wilson, 345 F.3d 447, 449 (6th Cir. 2003), "[t]he district court's conclusion that skills possessed by a defendant are 'special' within the meaning of the Guideline . . . is a mixed finding of law and fact that this court reviews de novo." United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir. 2000); see United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2008). Reichert contends that his skills are not "special" within the meaning of § 3B1.3. Emphasizing that he is a truck driver with only a high school diploma, Reichert points to § 3B1.3, cmt. n.4, which explains, "'Special skill' refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts."
Computer skills cover a wide spectrum of ability.”). Compare id. at 506–07 (concluding that the defendant's “high level” computer skills qualified as a special skill), with United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 799 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the defendant's computer skills were not a special skill because, inter alia, they did not rise to the level of sophistication of the defendant's special skills in Petersen, supra ), and United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322–23 (6th Cir.2000) (same). The Panel's opinion recognizes this point (albeit tacitly) because it focuses on Mr. Berry's particular truck-driving abilities, rather than on whether or not truck-driving skills categorically constitute a special skill.
Id. at 944-45. 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2000).See id. at 322-23.
Id . at 507 n.5 ; see also Lee , 296 F.3d at 798 ("[T]his adjustment becomes open-ended to the point of meaninglessness if the phrase ‘special skill’ is taken out of its context."). In United States v. Godman , 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit considered Petersen and quoted and followed the limiting footnote. Id . at 322–23.
Thus, de novo review applies to the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines' definition of "position of trust" and "special skills." See id. at 665; see also United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir. 2000). B. Definition of the Enhancement
See also United States v. Noah, 130 F.3d 490, 499-500 (1st Cir. 1997). Given the special training needed for Amadeus, O'Brien would qualify for the enhancement even under the Sixth Circuit's more defendant-friendly view of the enhancement taken in United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322-23 (6th Cir. 2000), a case on which O'Brien relies. In addition, Godman is not the law in this circuit.
Courts in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have, on occasion, gone quite far in insisting, as a sine qua non, upon an extensive amount of formal education, training and licensing. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322-23 (6th Cir. 2000). As noted, we do not go so far. Where the record supports a finding of a skill of sufficient kind and scope at a level well beyond that of a member of the general public, we will affirm the reasonable judgment of the district court.