NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 23a0026n.06

No. 22-5096

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KENNETH MOBLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

KENTUCKY

OPINION

Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Kenneth Mobley appeals his sentence totaling 76 

months’ imprisonment for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft based on his fraudulent 

procurement of luxury cars. The district court used the total sales price, including various service 

and finance charges, in the total loss amount to calculate his Guidelines range. Mobley appeals, 

arguing that his sentence is unreasonable, and that the restitution order is not supported by facts in 

the record. Because the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount and did not 

plainly err in ordering restitution, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Over the course of six months in 2020, Mobley defrauded car dealerships to obtain luxury 

cars. Using stolen identifying information purchased on the “dark web,” Mobley created false 

identifications and presented them to car dealerships to purchase cars on credit. All told, Mobley 
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-2-

obtained five cars, the value of which increased with each fraudulent purchase. The first fraudulent 

purchase occurred in Lexington, Kentucky, while the other four occurred in Florida. 

A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Mobley in the Eastern District of 

Kentucky with felon in possession of a firearm, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Mobley 

pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and the Government agreed it would move 

to dismiss the firearm count at sentencing. In the plea agreement, Mobley agreed to the imposition 

of restitution, including losses incurred by victims in a pending state court case in Florida. At his 

rearraignment hearing, Mobley confirmed that he read and understood the plea agreement, 

including the provision regarding restitution. 

The parties disputed the loss amount attributable to the wire fraud count. The Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a total offense level of 16, including a 12-level enhancement

pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1.(b)(1) based on a loss amount of $253,294.87. That amount represents

the total of the amount financed to fraudulently obtain the five cars. 

Mobley objected to the loss amount specified in the PSR. He argued that charges for 

“processing fees and [gap] insurance coverage” and “substantial finance charges”—totaling 

approximately $45,000—should not be included in the loss amount according to the commentary

to § 2B1.1. Excluding any of those charges, Mobley contends that his loss amount would fall 

below the threshold of $250,000 for a 12-level enhancement, entitling him to a two-level reduction 

in his total offense level and a lower Guidelines range. The Government disagreed, arguing that 

the amount considered in the PSR accurately reflected the intended loss for the crime because the 

miscellaneous expenses were “part and parcel of the fraud,” not improper “after-the-fact” 

expenses. 
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-3-

At sentencing, the district court adopted the Government’s position and overruled 

Mobley’s objection. It reasoned that the “object [of the scheme] was to get the cars, and in order 

to get the cars, [Mobley] had to finance [them]” and the expenses were not accrued after the 

purchase. With the 12-level enhancement, Mobley’s Guidelines range on the wire fraud count was

46 to 57 months with an additional 24-month consecutive term on the aggravated identity theft 

count. Ultimately, the court imposed a Guidelines sentence of 52 months on the wire fraud count

to be followed by the 24-month consecutive term on the aggravated identity theft count for a total 

term of 76 months’ imprisonment. The judgment also provided for restitution in the amount of 

$55,178.87 payable to two car dealerships, an apartment complex, an insurance company, a rental 

company, and a home furnishing company.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Mobley raises two issues regarding his sentence: (1) it was unreasonable 

because the loss amount was overstated, which resulted in a higher Guidelines range, and (2) the 

restitution order was erroneous. “We review a district court’s calculation of the ‘amount of loss’ 

for clear error, but consider the methodology behind it de novo.” United States v. White, 846 F.3d 

170, 179 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Meda, 812 F.3d 502, 519 (6th Cir. 2015)). To 

demonstrate clear error, the defendant “must show the calculation ‘was not only inexact but outside 

the universe of acceptable computations.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Healy, 553 F. App’x 560, 

564 (6th Cir. 2014)). Arguments not preserved in the district court at sentencing are reviewed 
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-4-

under the plain error standard. 1 United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en 

banc). 

A. The District Court’s Loss Amount Finding

Under the Guidelines commentary, the loss caused by fraud is the “greater of actual loss or 

intended loss,” with intended loss defined as “the pecuniary harm that the defendant purposely 

sought to inflict.” USSG § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(i)-(ii)).2 But “[i]nterest of any kind, finance 

charges, late fees, penalties, amounts based on an agreed-upon return or rate of return, [and] other 

similar costs,” should be excluded from the loss calculation. Id., comment. (n.3(D)(i)). Similarly,

the loss amount should be reduced by the fair market value of any property returned to the victim 

“before the offense was detected” and amounts recovered by the victim “in [cases] involving 

collateral pledged or otherwise provided by the defendant.” Id., comment. (n.3(E)(i)-(ii)). 

At sentencing, the Government bears the burden of proving the loss amount by a 

preponderance of evidence, and “the district court ‘need only make a reasonable estimate’ of the 

amount.” United States v. Jones, 641 F.3d 706, 712 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting USSG § 2B1.1, 

comment. (n.3(C))). In this case, the court found that Mobley intended to inflict over $250,000 of 

pecuniary harm to the victims as supported by the Government’s exhibits detailing the total amount 

Mobley financed to obtain the five cars, which exceeded their cash price. As he did at sentencing, 

Mobley contends that the loss amount was overstated by impermissibly including extraneous

charges that he argues should have been excluded according to the Guidelines commentary. 

1 The plain error standard requires a challenger to show error that was obvious or clear, affected substantial rights, and 

affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Vonner, 516 U.S. 382, 

386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

2 Mobley does not challenge the validity of the Guidelines commentary defining loss. We have previously held that 

the commentary defining loss should be afforded deference under Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, (1993), 

because it merely interprets the undefined phrase “loss” in the Guidelines rather than adding to it. See United States 

v. Murphy, 815 F. App’x 918, 924 (6th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) 

(en banc)).
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-5-

Additionally, for the first time on appeal, he argues that the loss amount should have been reduced 

by “amounts paid by Mobley, collateral recovery and other cost recovery” and should only reflect 

the value of one vehicle because the other four were not procured by wire fraud. These 

unpreserved arguments will be reviewed under the plain error standard. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 385. 

Intended loss has “long been defined as ‘the loss the defendant subjectively intended to 

inflict on the victim, e.g., the amount the defendant intended not to repay.’” United States v. 

Montgomery, 592 F. App’x 411, 418 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 

1419, 1427 (6th Cir. 1994)). In this context, it is not clear error to find that the total amount 

necessary to finance a luxury car is the harm Mobley intended to inflict. Mobley’s entire scheme 

was predicated on using stolen personal identifying information to obtain cars using those victims’ 

credit. To be sure, the Guidelines commentary contemplates excluding “[i]nterest of any kind, 

finance charges, late fees, penalties, amounts based on an agreed-upon return or rate of return, 

[and] other similar costs” from the loss amount. USSG 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(D)(i)). But Mobley 

does not explain how things like insurance coverage, processing fees, and predelivery service fees 

fall under that commentary as “other similar costs.” Further, courts have found that the purpose 

of the exclusion-from-loss commentary is to ensure that “the offense level for a financial crime is 

not increased if the prosecution is delayed, even though the delay increases the cost of the crime.” 

United States v. Peel, 595 F.3d 763, 772 (7th Cir. 2010). The finance charges necessary for 

Mobley to fraudulently obtain the cars appear to be fixed charges included at the time of sale, not 

amounts that would increase over time.

3

 Cf. United States v. Pouparina, 577 F. App’x 939, 941 

(11th Cir. 2014) (holding closing costs should not be excluded because they were “a fixed amount 

that was incurred only when the loan was originally taken out”); United States v. Longwell, 410 F. 

3

Indeed, Mobley admits in reply that the “strong majority of car purchases . . . are financed.” 
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-6-

App’x 684, 691 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that “interest or penalties” defendant sought to discharge 

through bankruptcy should not be excluded from loss amount). The district court did not clearly 

err in calculating the loss amount as the total amount financed—an amount that accurately reflects 

Mobley’s culpability. 

Mobley’s other, unpreserved arguments can be addressed quickly. His argument relying 

on cars that were recovered is not relevant because the cars were not recovered “before the offense 

was detected,” and this is not “a case involving collateral pledged or otherwise provided by 

[Mobley].” See USSG 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(i)-(ii)). His argument that only one car was 

procured by wire fraud is belied by the record, and, even if it were not, it does not change the 

result. The wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, requires a fraudulent scheme to cause a wire 

communication, but that communication “‘need not be an essential element of the scheme,’” only 

“‘incident to an essential part of the scheme,’ or ‘a step in [the] plot.’” United States v. Shanshan 

Du, 570 F. App’x 490, 505 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 

710-11 (1989)).

The district court did not clearly or plainly err in calculating the loss amount attributable 

to Mobley’s fraudulent scheme to procure luxury vehicles.

B. The District Court’s Restitution Order

For the first time on appeal, Mobley takes issue with the district court’s restitution order 

payable to two car dealerships, an apartment complex, an insurance company, a rental company, 

and a home furnishing company. He challenges the inclusion of restitution to the insurance 

company in the amount of $31,946.01, the apartment complex in the amount of $7,508.77, the 

rental company in the amount of $4720.10, and the home furnishing company in the amount of 
No. 22-5096, United States v. Mobley

-7-

$6,735.99. We review this unpreserved argument as to restitution under the plain error standard. 

Vonner, 516 F.3d at 385. 

The district court may order that a defendant make restitution to any victim of a fraud crime 

or, “if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other than the victim of 

the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(A). The statute defines “victim” as a “person directly and 

proximately harmed” because of the offense. Id. § 3663(a)(2). The district court may “also order 

restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.” Id. § 

3663(a)(3). The insurance company is arguably a victim as defined by the statute, as it stood in 

the place of one of the harmed car dealerships and was directly and proximately harmed by

Mobley’s offense. As for the apartment complex, rental company, and home furnishing company,

Mobley explicitly agreed to pay restitution at the ordered amount in his plea agreement and 

confirmed that he understood the provision at his rearraignment hearing. Including each of these 

companies in the restitution order was permitted under the statute, and the district court did not 

plainly err in including them in its restitution order. See United States v. Winans, 748 F.3d 268, 

272-73 (6th Cir. 2014) (affirming restitution order that included “persons other than the victim of 

the [wire fraud] offense” pursuant to plea agreement). 

III. CONCLUSION

Because we find that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount and 

did not plainly err in ordering restitution, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.