Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02761/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02761-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel P. Alfonso
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 

No. 06-2761

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Daniel P. Alfonso, *

*

Appellant, *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2006

Filed: March 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Daniel Alfonso pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343. The district court1

 sentenced him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. The

sentence was based in part on the district court’s calculation of the monetary losses

suffered by the victims of Alfonso’s fraudulent scheme. Alfonso appeals from his

sentence, contending that the district court used the wrong method to calculate these

losses. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511
2

To determine Alfonso’s offense level, the PSR utilized Guidelines amendments

that were in effect at the time of Alfonso’s offense conduct. 

3

An example illustrates this approach: investor Kevin Kincaid’s first investment

of $36,000 yielded a profit of $8,000. Accordingly, this investment did not add

anything to the amount of loss suffered by investors because it did not result in any

losses. On his second investment, however, Kincaid invested $265,000, but received

only $110,000 of that money back. The $155,000 loss on this second investment was

added to the total investor loss. If, as Alfonso suggested, gains from Kincaid’s first

investment were applied to offset his losses on the second investment, $147,000

would be added to the total loss calculation (that is, a $155,000 loss on the second

investment minus the $8,000 gain on the first investment). 

-2-

I. 

Alfonso operated a Ponzi scheme, through which he obtained funds from

investors by fraudulently claiming that he would invest their money in promising real

estate ventures. He made no such investments, however, and used the money instead

for his own personal use. Alfonso also used the money to perpetuate the scheme by

providing some individuals with a profit on their investments in order to encourage

further investment. Some of his victims made two different investments with Alfonso.

These individuals profited from their initial investment, but lost money on their

subsequent investment.

The presentence investigation report (PSR), applying U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (1998),2

determined that Alfonso’s total offense level was 15. This assessment was partly

based on the PSR’s determination that the total loss to Alfonso’s victims was

$385,125. See § 2F1.1(b)(1)(J) (applying a 9-level increase if the loss is more than

$350,000). In calculating this total loss, the PSR evidently concluded that profits from

a victim’s earlier investments could not be used to offset losses on that same victim’s

subsequent investments (or, for that matter, losses on another victim’s investment).3

Alfonso objected to this method, arguing that a victim’s profits on one investment

should be used to reduce the victim’s losses on other investments for purposes of

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511
-3-

determining total investor loss. He contends that if this method were applied and

other errors in the loss calculation were corrected, the total loss from his scheme

would be less than $350,000 and would result in a Guidelines range of 15 to 21

months’ imprisonment. The district court, however, adopted the PSR’s calculation of

total victim loss and sentenced Alfonso at the high end of the resulting Guidelines

range of 18 to 24 months. 

 II.

“We review a district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing

guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Durham,

470 F.3d 727, 734 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012,

1017 (8th Cir. 2005)). In defining “loss,” the district court relied upon Application

Note 3(F)(iv) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (2005). Although this application note was added

after Alfonso’s offense conduct, the parties agree that it was properly relied upon

because it simply clarified the meaning of the term “loss.”

Application Note 3(F)(iv) states:

In a case involving a fraudulent investment scheme, such as a Ponzi

scheme, loss shall not be reduced by the money or the value of the

property transferred to any individual investor in the scheme in excess

of that investor’s principal investment (i.e., the gain to an individual

investor in the scheme shall not be used to offset the loss to another

individual investor in the scheme). 

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(F)(iv) (2005). Although the parties agree that this note

prohibits gains to one investor from being used to offset losses to another investor,

it does not explicitly address whether gains from an individual’s earlier investments

should be used to offset losses from that same person’s later investments. The

rationale underlying the application note, however, is instructive: “[T]he gain to any

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511
-4-

individual investor in the scheme [should not be] used to offset the loss to other

individual investors because any gain realized by an individual investor is designed

to lure others into the fraudulent scheme.” U.S.S.G. Supplement to Appendix C,

amendment 617 at p. 189 (Nov. 1, 2001) (citing United States v. Orton, 73 F.3d 331

(11th Cir. 1996)). In other words, Ponzi scheme operators do not provide investors

with gains out of the goodness of their hearts or to lessen damage to investors, but to

keep their fraudulent scheme running. See United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117,

1125 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “schemers typically return money to investors to

perpetuate the fraud and ensnare new investors, and not to mitigate damages to the

current investors”). Accordingly, they should not reap sentencing benefits for making

payments to investors that are designed to perpetuate their scheme. 

The considerations that underlie the application note’s prohibition against

offsetting one investor’s losses by another investor’s gains also counsel against

allowing a defendant to use a victim’s gains on an earlier investment to offset losses

on that same victim’s later investment. Just as gains realized by an individual investor

lure other investors into the scheme, those gains may also entice that same investor

to make further contributions to the fraudulent enterprise. A repeat investor is

essentially in the same position as a new investor for these purposes. To hold

otherwise would be to reward defendants for conduct that perpetuates, and constitutes

a component of, the Ponzi scheme. Accordingly, we conclude that the PSR’s loss

calculation was appropriate. 

Alfonso contends that United States v. Orton, 73 F.3d 331 (11th Cir. 1996),

requires victims’ losses to be offset by their gains and that this requirement was

adopted by the Guidelines. We disagree. In Orton, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the

“net loss” method of calculating investor loss, which entails using one victim’s gains

to offset another victim’s losses, as well as (as we will refer to it) the “risk” method,

which involves assessing the amount of money placed at risk by the defendant’s

scheme, regardless of whether the victim suffered any losses on the investment. 73

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511
-5-

F.3d at 334. In rejecting the “net loss” and “risk”methods, Orton spoke approvingly

of the approach taken by the district court in that case (referred to as the “loss to

losing victims” method), which was to “total[] the net losses of all victims who lost

all or part of the money they invested.” Id. Although this approach appears

superficially consonant with the method advocated by Alfonso, Orton did not squarely

address how losses suffered and gains made by a repeat investor should be assessed

in calculating total loss, the issue before us today. Moreover, Orton noted that the

approach used by the district court did not “reward a defendant who returns money in

excess of an individual’s initial ‘investment’ solely to entice additional investments

and conceal the fraudulent conduct,” id., a consideration which, as set forth above,

suggests that a victim’s gains should be used to offset neither losses to another victim

nor losses to that same victim later on in the scheme. In any event, although the

Sentencing Commission adopted Orton’s rejection of the “net loss” method, it is not

clear that it adopted any other aspect of the opinion. See U.S.S.G. Supplement to

Appendix C, amendment 617 at p. 189 (Nov. 1, 2001) (“This amendment adopts the

approach of [Orton] that excludes the gain to any individual investor in the scheme

from being used to offset the loss to other individual investors because any gain

realized by an individual investor is designed to lure others into the fraudulent

scheme.”). Accordingly, we believe that neither Orton nor Application Note 3(F)(iv)

requires a different result in this case. 

In sum, then, we conclude that the district court properly declined to offset

victims’ gains on one investment against their losses on subsequent investments.

Whether the offsetting urged by Alfonso might in some cases be appropriate is a

question that we need not address here. Cf. Orton, 73 F.3d at 333 (“Fraudulent

schemes, however, come in various forms, and we must consider the nature of the

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511
4

Alfonso argues that we approved his proposed method of loss calculation in

United States v. Craiglow, 432 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2005). We do not believe that

Craiglow assists Alfonso. Although the loss calculation that occurred in Craiglow,

referenced in a footnote and contested on other grounds, apparently entailed “taking

the total amount of monies invested by the investor and subtracting the money

Craiglow paid to that investor,” id. at 818 n.3, Craiglow does not directly address

whether and how a victim’s gains on one investment may be applied to offset the

victim’s subsequent losses. Moreover, there is very little information in Craiglow

regarding the investment and payment patterns that occurred in that case. 

-6-

scheme in determining what method is to be used to calculate the harm caused or

intended.”).4

Alfonso also argues that the district court erred because it may have applied the

“risk” method. We reject this argument because the district court does not appear to

have used this method. Although the district court’s statement of reasons cites two

cases that appear to countenance use of the “risk” method, the district court expressly

endorsed the loss calculations reflected in the presentence report. 

Because we affirm the district court’s general methodology, we need not reach

Alfonso’s remaining arguments.

 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2761 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286511