# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 35 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Cl aren ce Al le n R ic e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 12

Fil ed : No ve m

be r 14 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Cl aren ce All en Ri ce w a s c o n vi ct ed of fo ur co un ts of wire frau d ba se d on

frau du le nt m on ey tra ns fers he mad e i n c o nn ect io n wit h hi s le as in g bu si ne ss

. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 70 m on th s an d or de red res ti tu ti on of $3 .3 m il li on

. He

1

ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns

, th e ve rd ic t fo rm

, an d hi s s e n t e n c e. W e

affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t

1

fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.I.

Ri ce own ed se ve ral rel at ed co m pa ni es in Des Mo in es whi ch he op erat ed as on e

co m pa ny ca ll ed C&J

. C&J le as ed go lf cart s, ta nn in g be ds , a nd o t h e r e q u i pm en t to

sm al l bu si ne ss es fo r a m on th ly fee. To fin an ce it s op erat io ns

, C&J reg ul arl y so ld

le as es to Fro nt ie r Leas in g Co rp or at io n, whi ch wou ld th en re c e i v e th e st ream of

m on th ly pa y m en ts fro m th e sm al l bu si ne ss es

. C&J rem ai ne d th e na m ed pa rty on th e

le as e, co ll ect ed th e le as e pa y m en ts

, an d fo rward ed th em to Fro nt ie r. C&J wou ld al so

fo rward lu m

p su m s fro m le ss ees who wis he d to pa y of f th e ba la nc e ah ead of

sc he du le , and wou ld rep ur ch as e le as es th at went in to de fau lt

.

In Ju ne 20 00 Ri ce be ga n us in g fu nd s fro m C&J to en ga ge in on li n e d ay

tra di ng

, an d C&J e x p e r i e n c e d cas h flo w pr ob le m s as a res ul t. To co ve r C&J 's

li ab il it ie s Ri ce be ga n to wit hh ol d lu m p su m s it r e c e i v ed whe n a le ss ee pa id of f it s

le as e earl y

. In st ead of fo rward in g th e lu m p su m to Fro nt ie r, Ri ce wou ld fo rward an

am ou nt eq ua l to th e n or m al m on th ly pay m en t s o t ha t Fr on ti er wo ul d n ot real iz e th e

le as e ha d bee n pai d off. Su rp lu s cash wou ld be us ed to rep le ni sh Ric e's in ve st m en t

acco un t. In si m il ar fas hi on Ri ce m ad e m on th ly pa y m en ts on de fau lt ed le as es in or de r

to av oi d C&J 's ob li g a t i o n t o r e pu rch as e th em

, an d he so ld Fro nt ie r a nu m be r of

co m pl et el y in va li d leas es th at ha d bee n can cel ed

, rewri tt en

, or al read y pa id of f. He

ga ve in accu rat e acc ou nt in gs to Fro nt ie r th ro ug ho ut

.

In 20 06 an in te rn al in ve st ig at io n by Fro nt ie r rev eal ed th at a la rg e nu m be r of

mo n t hl y pa y m en ts were act ua ll y co m in g fro m C&J rat he r th an fro m le ss ees

, an d

Fro nt ie r be ga n to su sp ect frau d. W he n Fro nt ie r de m an de d to ha ve di rect co nt act wit h

th e le ss ees

, Ri ce was fo rced to ad m it th at hu nd red s of th e le as es were in de fau lt

, pa id

of f, rewri tt en

, o r can cel ed

, an d th at C&J la ck ed th e fu nd s ne ces sa ry to rep ur ch as e

th em

. Nearl y 70 0 of th e 27 00 le as es C&J ha d so ld to Fro nt ie r were in vo lv ed wit h a

to ta l v al ue of a pp ro xi m at el y $7 m il li on

.

-2

-Ri ce was in di ct ed on fou r co un ts of wire frau d un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 3. Th e

in di ct m en t all eg ed th at Ri ce had in te nt io na ll y de vi se d a sc he m e to de frau d Fron ti er

th ro ug h s ev eral m ean s an d t ha t i n fu rth eran ce o f hi s s ch em e h e h ad m ad e in te rs ta te

wire tra ns fers

. Each co un t of th e in di ct m en t refe ren ced a sp eci fic m on ey tra ns fer by

wire in whi ch Ri ce ha d de po si te d a le ss ee's earl y pa y of f in C&J 's a cco un t i n Io wa.

Co un t 1 f

o r e x a m pl e id en ti fie d a tra ns fer of ap pr ox im at el y $3 ,00 0 by a le ss ee in

Nor th Caro li na

. Co un ts 2, 3 an d 4 id en t i f i e d si m il ar tra ns fers of le ss ee pa y m en ts

fro m Oreg on

, Virg in ia

, an d Fl or id a. The in di ct men t al le ge d th at in each cas e Ri ce

ha d co nv ert ed th e pa y of

f m on ey to hi s own us e in st ead of fo rward in g it to Fro nt ie r.

In ad di ti on to th e co nv ers io n of earl y pa y of fs

, th e in di ct m en t de sc rib ed se ve ral ot he r

m ean s in whi ch Ri ce ha d carr ie d ou t hi s sc he m e, in cl ud in g c o n c e a l in g de fau lt ed

le as es , sel li ng in va li d l eas es , and gi vi ng in accu rat e acc ou nt in gs

.

The jury in st ru ct io ns gi ve n at tri al m irr or ed th e in di ct m en t in se tt in g fo rth th e

ch arg es an d fact ua l al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Ri ce. In st ru ct io n 8 id en ti fie d th e wire tra ns fer

rel at ed to each co un t, li st in g th e da te

, lo cat io n, an d amo u n t th at was co nv ert ed by

Ri ce. In st ru ct io n 9 de sc rib ed Ri ce's sc he m e to de frau d Fro nt ie r, li st in g twel ve m ean s

he ha d us ed to carr y it ou t. The se in cl ud ed "co nv ert in g [ear ly pa y of fs ] to hi s own

us e," "[c ]onc eal in g th e st at us of de fa u l te d le as es ," "[s ]elli ng le as es to Fro nt ie r th at

were no lo ng er val id ," and se ve ral ot he rs de sc rib ed in th e in di ct m en t. In st ru ct io n 9

ex pl ai ne d th at th e go ve rn m en t on ly ne ed ed to pr ov e on e of th e twel ve m ean s in or de r

to es ta bl is h th at Ri ce ha d de vi se d a sc he m e to de frau d Fro nt ie r an d th at al l th e juro rs

di d n ot ne ed to ag ree o n t he same part ic ul ar m ean s.

The jury fo un d Ri ce gu il ty on al l fo ur co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a two da y

se nt en ci ng he ari ng whe re it he ard te st im on y fro m nu m ero us wit ne ss es an d rece iv ed

hu nd red s of ex hi bi ts

. The co ur t cal cu la te d th e to ta l lo ss fro m Ri ce's frau d to be $5 .4

mi l l i on an d hi s gu id el in e se nt en ci ng ran ge to be 70 to 87 m on th s. The co ur t

su bs eq ue nt ly se nt en ced Ri ce to 7 0 mon th s an d or de red $3 .3 m il li on in res ti tu ti on

.

-3

-Ri ce ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce, ch al le ng i n g th e jury in st ru ct io ns , v erd ic t

fo rm , lo ss cal cu la ti on , res ti tu ti on award , and sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t.

II.

Ri ce fir st ap pe al s th e jury in st ru ct io ns gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t, arg ui ng th at

th e jury sh ou ld ha ve be en req ui red to ag ree un an im ou sl y on whi ch m ean s he ha d us ed

to carr y ou t th e sc he m e to de frau d Fro nt ie r. W e rev ie w th e jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e

of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Fl or ez, 36 8 F.3 d 10 42

, 10 44 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). W e wil l

affi rm if, "t ak en as a who l e

, [th ey ] ad eq ua te ly ad vi se [d ] th e jury of th e es se nt ia l

e l e men ts of th e of

fen se s ch arg ed an d th e bu rd en of pr oo f req ui red of t h e

go ve rn m en t." Uni te d S ta te s v . She rer, 6 53 F.2d 33 4, 3 37 (8t h C ir. 1 98 1)

.

Si nc e each us e of a wir e i s a s e pa rat e vi ol at io n of th e wire frau d st at ut e, 18

U.S.C. § 13 43 ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Cal ve rt, 52 3 F.2 d 89 5, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 75 ), th ere

m ay be m ul ti pl e vi ol at io ns ari si ng fro m a si ng le frau du le nt sc he m e. The go ve rn m en t

m us t pr ov e each es se nt ia l el em en t of wire frau d to es ta bl is h th e de fen da nt 's gu il t: (1 )

in te nt to de frau d, (2 ) pa rti ci pa ti on in a sc he m e to de frau d, an d (3 ) th e us e of a wire

in fur th eran ce o f th e fra ud ul en t s ch em e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Fran k, 3 54 F.3d 91 0, 9 18

(8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). If th e de fen da nt is ch arg ed wit h mu l t ip le co un ts

, th e go ve rn m en t

m us t p ro ve each ele m en t wi th res pe ct to each co un t.

Here, th e in di ct m en t ch arg ed Ri ce wit h fo ur co un ts of wire frau d. Each co un t

ch arg ed Ri ce wit h co nv ert in g a lu m p su m pa y of

f th at sh ou ld ha ve be en fo rward ed to

Fro nt ie r bu t was in st ead de po si te d in C&J 's ba nk acco u n t

. The jury in st ru ct io ns

ex pl ai ne d th at si nc e each co un t was a se pa rat e cri m e, th e el em en ts of wire frau d ha d

to be pr ov en se pa rat el y wit h res pe ct to each tra ns fer. The in di ct m en t al so al le ge d th at

am on g ot he r th i n g s Ri ce co nc eal ed de fau lt ed le as es

, so ld in va li d le as es

, an d ga ve

in accu rat e acco un ti ng s to Fro n t i e r

, a nd th e jury in st ru ct io ns ex pl ai ne d th at th os e

al le ga ti on s were m erel y

di ffer en t m ean s by wh ic h Ri ce was al le ge d to ha ve carr ie d

-4

-ou t th e sc he m e t o d efra ud

. The jury was in st ru ct ed th at it di d no t ne ed to ag ree

sp eci fic al ly on whi ch of th os e twel ve m ean s he ha d us ed to de frau d Fro nt ie r, so lo ng

as each juro r ag reed th at he ha d u se d a t l eas t o ne of t he m

.

Tak in g th e jury in st ru ct io ns as a w h o l e

, we co nc lu de th at th e jury was

"ad eq ua te ly ad vi se [d ]

. . . of th e es se n t ia l el em en ts of th e of fen se s ch arg ed an d th e

bu rd en of pr o o f req ui red of th e go ve rn m en t." Sh erer , 6 53 F.2 d at 33 7. In st ru ct io n

8 co rrec tl y se t f

o r t h t h e th ree el em en ts of wire frau d, li st ed th e fo ur co un ts

, an d

ex pl ai ne d th at th e go ve rn men t n e e d ed to pr ov e each el em en t be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t. In ad di ti on

, In st ru ct io n 8 id en ti fie d th e wire tra ns fer at is su e in each co un t an d

rem in de d th e jury t h a t each on e was a se pa rat e cri m e fo r whi ch th e go ve rn m en t

ne ed ed to es ta bl is h al l th ree el em en ts of wire frau d. In or de r to co nv ic t Ri ce, th e jury

ne ed ed to co nc lu de th at wit h res pe ct to each co un t Ri ce in te nt io na ll y de vi se d a

sc he m e to de frau d an d us ed an in te rs ta te wire in fu rth eran ce of hi s sc he m e. Thi s was

a cl ear an d pr op er in st ru ct io n on th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e ch arg e s an d th e

go ve rn m en t's bu rd en of p ro of

.

W e al so co nc lu de th at In st ru ct io n 9 was pr op er, as it st at ed th e co rrec t st an da rd

fo r th e jury to us e in co ns id eri ng th e m ean s Ri ce us ed to de frau d Fro nt ie r. Co nt rary

t o R i c e ' s c on te nt io n, th e jury was no t req ui red to reac h a un an im ou s de ci si on o n

whi ch m ean s he ha d us ed to de frau d Fron ti er. The ge ne ral ru le is th at th e jury ne ed

no t ag ree on th e "u nd erl y in g br ut e fact s" of a ve rd ic t, su ch as th e m ean s th e de fen da nt

us ed to co m

m it an el em en t of th e cri m e. Ri ch ard so n v. Uni te d St at es

, 52 6 U.S. 81 3,

8 17 (1 99 9) (ci ti ng Sch ad v. Ariz on a, 50 1 U.S. 62 4, 63 1– 32 (1 99 1) (p l u r a l i t y

op in io n) ). In frau d cas es juro rs ne ed no t agre e on "t he pr eci se m an ne r in whi ch th e

sc he m e v io la te d t he law," on ly the "g en eral th ru st " o f th e sc he m e. Uni te d St at es v.

Bl um ey er, 11 4 F.3 d 75 8, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Si m il arl y

, th e F i r s t C i r c ui t ha s

reco gn iz ed th at th e jury ne ed no t ag ree on each pi ece of ev id en ce of fere d to pr ov e th e

de fen da nt 's pa rti ci pa ti on in th e frau du le nt sc he m e, Uni te d St at es v. Ree de r, 17 0 F.3 d

93

, 10 5 (1 st Ci r. 19 99 ), an d th e Nin th Ci rcu it ha s po in te d ou t th at th e jury "n eed no t

-5

-be un an im ou s on th e pa rti cu la r fal se pr om is e" m ad e by th e de fen da nt

, Uni te d St at es

v. Ly on s, 4 72 F.3d 10 55 , 10 68 (9t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The un an im it y la ng ua ge in In st ru ct io n 9 was ta k e n di rect ly fro m th e Eig ht h

Ci rcu it m od el jury in st ru ct io ns fo r co m pl ex frau d cas es

. See Man ua l o f M od el

Cri m in al Ju ry In st ru ct io ns fo r th e Dis tri ct Co ur ts of th e Eig ht h C i r c ui t § 6.1 8.1 34 1

n.2 (20 11 ). If th e g ov ern m en t h as all eg ed m ul ti pl e act s t ha t " se t o ut di ffer en t ways

of co m m it ti ng th e o f

fen se ," th e co ur t sh ou ld in st ru ct th e juro rs th at th ey ne ed no t

ag ree as to th e p art ic ul ar ac t th at was do ne

. Id

. Here, th e co ur t pr op erl y in st ru ct ed

th e juro rs th at th ey ne ed ed to ag ree th at on e of th e m ean s ha d be en us ed

, bu t th at no t

al l n eed ed to ag ree o n t he same on e. Id

.

Thi s cas e is no t si m il ar to Ri ch ard so n, 52 6 U.S. at 81 5, as Ri ce as se rts

. The re,

th e de fen da nt was ch arg ed wit h en ga gi ng in a co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e (CCE),

de fin ed by stat ut e as a vi ol at io n o f th e dr ug la ws th at is pa rt of a "co nt in ui ng ser ie s

of vi ol at io ns ." Id .; se e 18 U.S.C. § 84 8. The Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d t ha t i n th e CCE

co nt ex t th e jury ne ed ed to ag ree un an im ou sl y on whi ch of se ve ral al le ge d cri m in al

act s were pa rt of t he ch arg ed of fen se si nc e th at st at ut e m ak es each vi ol at io n in th e

un de rlyin g se rie s an el em en t of th e of fen se

. Ri ch ard so n, 52 6 U.S. at 81 5. The

si tu at io n he re is co m

pl et el y di ffer en t. As we st at ed ab ov e, th e el em en ts of wire frau d

are si m pl y (1 ) in te nt to de frau d, (2 ) pa rti ci pa ti on in a sc he m e to de frau d, an d (3 ) th e

us e o f a wir e in fu rth eran ce of the frau du le nt sc he m e. Fran k, 3 54 F.3d at 9 18 . The

cri m es of whi ch Ri ce was co nv ic te d were se pa rat e in st an ces of wire f r a u d

, no t

se pa rat e el em en ts in a co m pl ex cri m in al st at ut e. Acco rd in gl y

, we co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g iv in g t he jury in st ru ct io ns in th is cas e.

Ri ce al so arg ue s th at th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve acce pt ed hi s pr op os al fo r a sp eci al

v e r d i c t fo rm as ki ng th e jury to sp eci fy whi ch of th e twel ve m ean s ou tl in ed i n

In st ru ct io n 9 th e go ve r n men t h a d p r o ve n. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a req ue st fo r a

sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Pi erce

, 47 9 F.3 d 54 6,

-6

-55 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Si nc e we ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e jury was no t req ui red to ag ree

un an im ou sl y on th e pa rti cu la r m ean s Ri ce us ed in each frau du le nt wire tra ns fer, we

al so co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e req ue st

fo r a s pe ci al ve rd ic t fo rm

.

III.

Ri ce ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s lo ss cal cu l a t i o n a nd

res ti tu ti on award

. He c o nt en ds th at th e pr op er m eas ur e of lo ss was no t th e lo ss to

Fro nt ie r an d C&J 's cu st om ers bu t hi s own pr of it

, na m el y th e $1 .6 m il li on of C&J

fu nd s he ha d co nv ert ed to hi s own us e. W e rev ie w th e lo ss cal cu la ti on fo r cl ear erro r,

Uni te d St at es v. The im er, 55 7 F.3 d 57 6, 57 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), an d th e res ti tu ti on award

fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, Uni te d St at es v

. S ch m id t, 67 5 F.3 d 11 64 , 1 16 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ).

In frau d cas es th e co ur t de te rm in es th e de fen da nt 's ba se of fen se le ve l us in g th e

a mo u n t o f lo ss th at res ul te d fro m th e cri m e. See U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1

. Los s "i s t h e

gr eat er of act ua l lo ss or in te nd ed lo ss ," wit h act ua l l o ss de fin ed as th e "re as on ab ly

fo res eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th at res ul te d fro m th e of fen se ." Id

. cm t. n.3 (A). The ga in

to th e de fen da nt m ay be us ed as an al te rn at iv e m eas ur e of lo ss

, bu t on ly if th e act ua l

or in te nd ed lo ss "re as on ab ly can no t be de te rm in ed ." Id

. cm t. n.3 (B). A "re as on ab le

es ti m at e of th e lo ss " is su ffi ci en t. Id

. cm t. n.3 (C). The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th e

lo ss to Fro nt ie r by ta ki ng th e ba la nc e in C&J 's se cu rit y de po si t acco un t an d

su bt ract in g th e real se cu rit y de po si ts an d th e ex tra m on th ly pa y m en ts C&J ha d m ad e

to Fro nt ie r on de fa u l t e d o r in va li d le as es

. The co ur t de te rm in ed th e lo ss to C&J 's

le ss ees by ta ki ng th e se c u r i t y d ep os it s Ri ce ha d no t ret ur ne d. Add in g th e two

, th e

co ur t ca lc ul at ed a to ta l l os s o f $5 .4 m il li on . The co ur t d el ib erat el y ex cl ud ed lo ss es

fro m C&J 's fai lu re to rep ur ch as e de fau lt ed le as es fro m Fro nt ie r, ex pl ai ni ng th at "i t

is he lp fu l . . . to av oi d d efau lt ed lea se pro bl em s."

-7

-W e reject Ri ce's co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve us ed hi s ga in in

de te rm in in g t he to ta l l os s fr om hi s s ch em e. The d efen da nt 's g ai n is on ly to be us ed

whe re th e lo ss "re as on ab ly can no t be de te rm in ed ," U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.3 (B), an d

we th in k th e co ur t reas on ab ly de te rm in ed th e lo ss in th is cas e. A c c o rd in gl y

, we

co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t cl earl y err in cal cu la ti ng th e lo ss fro m Ri ce's

sc he m e o r ab us e it s d is cret io n i n o rd eri ng res ti tu ti on

.

IV.

W e tu rn fin al ly to Ri ce's se nt en ce. He arg ue s th a t t h e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to

ex pl ai n it s reas on s fo r de nyin g hi m a do wnwar d de pa rtu re or va ria nc e. He co nt en ds

th at he was en ti tl ed to a de pa rtu re or va ria nc e be cau se he di sc lo se d th at so m e of th e

le as es were in de fau lt

, m ak in g Fro nt ie r a w a r e th at le ss ees ' m on th ly pa y m en ts were

be in g pa id of

f by C&J

. H e su bm it s th at Fro nt ie r al lo wed th e frau d to co nt in ue

be cau se it was real iz in g a pr of it on th os e acco un ts

, an d th at th is pe rm it te d a se nt en ce

red uc ti on for wron gf

ul co nd uc t o f th e v ic ti m

un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 K2.1 0.

Ri ce fai le d to ob

ject to th is al le ge d pr oc ed ur al erro r at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

,

so we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Ph el ps

, 53 6 F.3 d 86 2, 86 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ). To es ta bl is h pl ai n erro r, "t he de fen da nt m us t s h o w : ( 1 ) a n erro r; (2 ) th at is

pl ai n; an d (3 ) th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s." Id

. Eve n if th e de fen da nt sh ows pl ai n

erro r, th e co ur t "m ay ex erci se it s di sc ret io n to co rrec t a f o r f e i t e d erro r on ly if it

se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y

, or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ."

Id . (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t d i d n ot pl ai nl y err in se nt en ci ng Ri ce.

Co nt rary to hi s as se rti on

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y co ns id ered an d reject ed th e

ar g u men t t ha t Fro nt ie r m us t ha ve be en aware of th e en ti re sc he m e be cau se he

di sc lo se d th at so m e lo an s were in de fau lt

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it ha d se en m an y

frau d cas es an d th at it was "n ot at al l un us ua l on ce a frau d is di sc ov ered to fin d th at

-8

-th ere are a nu m be r of in di cat or s th at

, ha d so m eo ne se en th em

, it m ig ht ha ve di sc lo se d

a frau d." Thi s was a su ffi ci en t ex p l a n a t i o n o f th e co ur t's de ci si on no t to de pa rt or

va ry do wnwar d. Mo reo ve r, Ri ce f a i l e d t o sh ow th at he was act ua ll y el ig ib le fo r a

de pa rtu re un de r § 5K2 .10

, whi c h pr ov id es th at th e vi ct im 's wro ng fu l co nd uc t is

ge ne ral ly "no t . . . rele va nt in th e co nt ex t o f no n- vi ol en t o ffen se s."

Fi na ll y

, we do no t add res s Rice 's ch al le ng e to th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

of hi s se nt en ce be cau se it was fir st rai se d in hi s rep ly br ie f. Is su es n o t rai se d in a

pa rty's op en in g br ie f are waiv ed

, se e Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v. Ash cro ft, 36 7 F.3 d 75 1, 75 6

(8 th Cir . 20 04 ), an d wh ere a cri m in al de fen da nt do es no t pro pe rly rai se th e is su e o f

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le n e s s w e d o no t ad dr es s it

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 55 0

F.3 d 7 24 , 72 9 n .4 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ). Mo reo ve r, hi s p os it io n l ack s m eri t.

V.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-