Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05058/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Alan Aven
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L D 

United Statel\ Court of Appeali: 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSHUA ALAN AVEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

) No. 92-5058 

) {D.C. No. 91-C-844-C) 

) {N. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge . 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34{a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
This is a direct appeal from a sentence imposed under the 

Federal ' 'd l' 1 Sentencing Gui e ines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742. In 1991, 

defendant Joshua Alan Aven pleaded guilty to two counts of 

unauthorized use of access devices in violation of 18 U.S . C. 

§ 1029 (a ) . The charges arose from his unlawful use of several 

different credit cards. Based on the presentence report, the 

district court determined the total loss from the use of the cards 

to be $157,182 . 96 . Defendant was sentenced to forty months' 

imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, in addition to 

restitution and a period of supervised release. 

On appeal, defendant argues the district court erred in 

determining the amount of loss, thus resulting in a significant 

increase in his base offense level under the guidelines. See 

U. S.S.G. § 2Fl.l(b) (1 ) . He also challenges the district court's 

conclusion that his four prior felony convictions were not 

"related cases" pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.2(a) (2). He maintains 

his criminal history points should be adjusted to reflect a three 

point increase for the prior convictions, rather than a twelve 

point increase. We address these arguments in turn. 

We review the district court's loss calculation under the 

clearly erroneous standard. United States v . Abud-Sanchez, 973 

F.2d 835, 838 (10th Cir. 1992). Thus, we may reverse on this 

issue only if the court's conclusion is without factual support in 

1 Defendant was sentenced on February 11, 1991. On October 24, 

1991, he filed a motion for leave to appeal out of time pursuant 

to 28 U. S.C. § 2255. The district court granted that motion on 

February 27, 1992. A timely notice of appeal was filed on 

Ma rch 5, 1992 . 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4 
the record or if we have a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake was made. We conclude that the court's 

determination, based on the presentence report, was not in error. 

The loss calculation can be broken down into several 

component parts. Defendant does not dispute the $39,622.50 loss 

directly attributable to his use of the credit cards. He does 

challenge the district court's determination that $84,709.78 was 

lost as a consequence of his use of the cards to make down 

payments on several vehicles. The presentence report states 

defendant financed the remainder of the vehicle purchases, then 

defaulted on the loans. Defendant also takes issue with the 

probation department's assessment of a $31,578 loss resulting from 

equity skimming involving a 1988 Jeep and a 1989 Galaxie power 

boat. 

Defendant obtained four vehicles during the period in 

question. In each case, he made a down payment, either on the 

credit cards or with cash, then financed the remainder. The 

$84,000 figure represents the balance of the various loans at 

repossession. Defendant maintains that this figure cannot 

represent the total loss because it was not adjusted to reflect 

the value of the vehicles at the time of repossession. He argues 

that the value of the vehicles should be subtracted. We disagree. 

In recent years this court has spoken extensively on the 

proper analysis for determining loss under U.S.S.G. § 2Fl.1. 

Where the fraud results in actual loss within the 

definition provided by the commentary to Guidelines 

§ 2Bl.1, that value will be considered for purposes of 

enhancement under section 2Fl.1. Where there is no such 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 6 
loss, or where actual loss is less than the loss the 

defendant intended to inflict, intended or probable loss 

may be considered. 

United States v. Smith, 951 F.2d 1164, 1166 (10th Cir. 1991 ) ; see 

also Abud-Sanchez, 973 F.2d at 838 ("Enhancement of a defendant's 

base offense level under section 2Fl.1 may be based on either 

actual or intended loss, whichever is greater."). 

The district court's assessment is not clearly erroneous when 

viewed in light of these cases. The $84,000 figure represents the 

probation department's calculation of intended loss. There is 

nothing in the record to suggest defendant ever had any intention 

of paying back the entities which financed these vehicles. Unlike 

those situations where a home was pledged as collateral for a 

fraudulently obtained loan and proper payments were made, this 

case presents strong facts suggesting that defendant's sole 

intention was to obtain the vehicles without paying for them. 

Thus, the district court did not err in determining this amount as 

the intended loss. 

Likewise, there is support in the record for the district 

court's adoption of a $31,578 figure to reflect the loss 

attributable to the equity skimming 2 venture. Defendant leased 

the 1988 Jeep on two different occasions to individuals who made a 

down payment, then agreed to make monthly payments to defendant 

over a period of time. Although the lessees made the payments, 

2 The government maintains defendant waived certain objections 

to this calculation because he failed to raise them fully in the 

district court. We disagree. The addendum to the presentence 

report reveals defendant objected to this calculation in several 

places. See Rec. Vol. II, Addendum to the Presentence Report at 

3, 5, 7 . 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 8 
defendant did not keep current with the underlying loan on the 

vehicle. There is no indication he ever intended to bring the 

l oan current. The transaction involving the Gal axie power boat 

was similar. Although defendant made arrangements for the sale of 

the boat t o a third party, he never made payment on the underlying 

loan. We agree with the district court that the intended loss 

figure of $31,578 is correct. 

We now turn to defendant's challenge to his criminal history 

assessment . Our review of this factual question is under the 

clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Kinney, 915 F.2d 

1471, 1472 (10th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l (a ) , 

three points are added to a defendant's criminal history score for 

every prior sentence exceeding one year and one month. Here, 

defendant had four prior state convictions arising from several 

incidents of drafting bogus checks . The convictions were combined 

for sentencing, however, and the sentences ran concurrently. 

The addendum to the presentence report describes the prior 

convictions. 

All of these crimes are separate criminal acts and in no 

way can be considered a single common scheme or plan. In fact, all of these crimes took place on separate 

dates, and involved different victims and bank accounts. 

Specifically, the conviction occurring on March 12, 

1987, involved the First National Bank of Tulsa. The 

offenses resulting in a conviction on April 6, 1987, 

involved the Promenade National Bank. The cases 

resulting in a conviction on March 12, 1987, involved 

checks written off the Dallas International Bank, the 

Security Bank, and the Superior Federal Bank . The 

Arkansas convi c tion occurring on June 9, 1986 , involved 

the Superior Federal Bank. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 10 
Rec. Vol. II, Addendum to Presentence Report at 3. 3 Defendant 

maintains these are related cases triggering only a single three 

point increase because they represent a continuing patt ern of 

writing bogus checks and, therefore, involve a common scheme. We 

disagree. 

These convictions occurred on different dates, involved 

different victims, and took place in two different states. The 

district court's conclusion that they are not related is not 

clearly erroneous. See Kinney. 915 F.2d at 1472 . Moreover, this 

court has already determined that the imposition of concurrent 

sentences is not dispositive of this question. Id. at 1472 - 73. 

Consequently, we reject defendant's challenge to the criminal 

history calculation. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED . 

3 The presentence 

convic tions occurred 

This discrepancy does 

Presentence Report at 

Entered for the Court 

G. Thomas Van Bebber 

District Judge 

report reflects that 

on November 17, 1987, and 

not change our analysis. 9 • 

6 

the latter two 

February 28, 1988 . See Rec. Vol. II, 

Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 11 
Appellate Case: 92-5058 Document: 010110220186 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 12