Case ID: f-appx_60/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER curiam:.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent Leon DUCKETT, Appellant.
    No. 02-3425.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted April 2, 2003.
    Decided April 3, 2003.
    Filed April 4, 2003.
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable James B. Loken became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2003.
    
   PER curiam:.

Vincent Leon Duckett pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and utter counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and restitution of $207,488. On appeal, Duckett argues that the district court erred in including in the amount of loss altered cashier’s checks totaling more than $4,000,000, because they could not have been negotiated and thus could not have resulted in actual loss. In the alternative, he argues that he should have received a 3-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 (1995), because the greater loss was merely attempted and not completed. After careful review of the record, we reject Duckett’s arguments, and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in determining the amount of loss. See United States v. Oligmueller, 198 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). Regardless of whether the checks could have been negotiated successfully, the evidence at sentencing indicated Duckett intended that they result in additional losses. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment, (n.7) (1995) (if intended loss that defendant was attempting to inflict can be determined, this figure will be used if it is greater than the actual loss). Further, a reduction under section 2X1.1 was not appropriate because the offense — conspiracy to possess forged securities — was completed, even if the loss was not inflicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 513(a); U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1, comment, (backg’d.) (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy. 
      
      . The HONORABLE JAMES M. MOODY, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.