UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 94-5729

DEREK DION CURTIS, I,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-93-150-B)

Submitted: February 6, 1996

Decided: March 6, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert J. Wagner, WAGNER & WAGNER, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Carmina S.

Hughes, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Derek Dion Curtis appeals from his convictions of and sentence for

impersonating a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 912

(West Supp. 1995), and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344

(West Supp. 1995). He contends that the trial court erred in determining that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove that he

was not a government employee and that the sentencing court erred

in attributing over $20,000 of fraudulently obtained property to him.

We affirm.

The government presented testimony that a Mrs. Ferguson called

a computer store representing Strategic Analysis and Management

Systems ("SAMS"), an alleged government agency. Mrs. Ferguson

stated that Dr. Derek Curtis would visit the store that afternoon and

any equipment selected should be charged to a purchase order number

she provided. Curtis went to the computer store and stated that he was

an administrator with SAMS, an agency above the FBI which conducts and supervises investigations for Congress. Curtis described his

agency as an arm of the Justice Department that did liaison work

between Congress and other arms of the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI"), the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Secret Service. Curtis selected two pagers to be

charged to the purchase order number and represented that the government would pay for the equipment. Curtis later purchased a police

scanner, a computer, and a laser printer in the same manner.

Curtis's personal check for the pager's monthly service charge was

returned with the notation that the account had been closed. Curtis

took another check and some cash to the computer store to make good

on the first check. The second check was returned for insufficient

funds. Despite Curtis's representation that the government would pay

for the equipment, which totalled $4,766.83, no payment was

 2
received. The computer store mailed an invoice to SAMS, but the

invoice was returned stamped "attempted, not known" indicating that

the address was wrong.

Fred Schall, a real estate agent, also received a telephone call from

Mrs. Ferguson from SAMS, which she described as a government

agency, part of the Office of Congressional Affairs. Mrs. Ferguson

informed Schall that an agency employee was looking to rent a house

and that the government would pay the entire year's rent and all costs

up front. Schall showed Curtis a house, which he agreed to rent. Curtis told Schall that he worked for the Congressional Branch of the

government as "an advance man for the congressional affairs," writing reports to keep government officials informed on current affairs.

Curtis informed Schall that the Secret Service would have to check

the security of the property. On the rental application, Curtis listed

Strategic Analysis as his employer for the past five years. Curtis represented that the government would pay the rent for the year and all

costs in one lump sum.

Curtis provided several excuses for the delay in payment from the

government. At Schall's request, Curtis provided a personal check for

the rent due plus a security deposit. This check bounced and, although

Curtis called the bank and assured Schall that there were sufficient

funds in the account, the check bounced again. Curtis later provided

a cashier's check for the rent due. No other payments were received

from Curtis or the government. Eventually, eviction proceedings were

initiated and Curtis vacated the property.

In purchasing a car, Curtis represented that he worked for Strategic

Analysis Management, which was affiliated with the Congressional

Affairs Office. On his credit application, Curtis stated that he had

been with that agency for nine years and seven months and that his

income was $96,500 per year. As a credit reference, Curtis listed a

savings account with Justice Department, Federal Credit Union. Curtis's check for a deposit on the car bounced. A Mrs. Ferguson then

called the dealership and stated that she worked for the Department

of Justice Federal Credit Union and that the money would be transferred to Curtis's account that afternoon. Based on this representation,

Curtis's credit application was to be approved upon verification of

income. Curtis provided a letter stating that he earned a salary of

 3
$96,500 and that he had been employed with the agency since March

1983. Based on the information in this letter, Chrysler approved the

credit application and the dealership delivered the car to Curtis. After

Curtis's second deposit check bounced, the dealership repossessed the

car.

The government also presented evidence that a search of the

Department of Justice employee files and its component organizations

for an individual named Derek Dion Curtis proved negative. No government agencies named Strategic Analysis and Management Systems or the Office of Congressional Affairs were found. This search

did not include FBI records. Also, the Department of Justice Credit

Union had no account in the name of Derek Curtis and that no one

with the last name of Ferguson was employed there.

To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 912, the government must

show that the defendant, not an officer or employee of the United

States, knowingly and willfully pretended to be an officer or

employee of the United States and in that role demanded or obtained

something of value. United States v. Guthrie, 387 F.2d 569, 571 (4th

Cir. 1967). Curtis contends that the government failed to prove that

he was not an officer or employee of the United States and that he

pretended to be one. However, Curtis--either personally or through

Mrs. Ferguson--represented himself to be a member of the Justice

Department or of the Office of Congressional Affairs or a liaison

between various governmental agencies. Curtis also represented that

his "agency," Strategic Analysis and Management Systems, was a part

of the Department of Justice or the Office of Congressional Affairs.

Additionally, Curtis supplied the Justice Department Federal Credit

Union as a credit reference when applying for credit for the automobile, and he represented that the government would pay for the lease

on the house.

Curtis's own testimony supported the conclusion that he did not

work for the government. See United States v. Thomas, 52 F.3d 82,

85 (4th Cir.) (entire record, including the defense, may be considered

in resolving sufficiency of the evidence), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,

64 U.S.L.W. 3246 (U.S. Oct. 2, 1995) (No. 95-5258). Curtis testified

that he was working for God to track down drug users and eliminate

corruption from the federal government. Further, Curtis admitted that

 4
he had previously been convicted of impersonating a federal

employee. These statements support the conclusion that Curtis was

not a federal employee or officer. Additionally, Curtis's expert witness, Dr. Raifman, testified that Curtis admitted impersonating a federal employee when he committed all of the acts in the indictment.

Because the evidence as a whole, viewed most favorably to the

government, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Curtis was not a government employee and was impersonating a government employee, we affirm Curtis's convictions under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 912. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United

States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).

Curtis also contends that the district court erred in finding that the

loss exceeded $20,000 because the car--valued in excess of $20,000

--was repossessed by the dealership. The commentary to Guidelines

section 2F1.1 references the commentary to § 2B1.1, which provides:

"In the case of a defendant apprehended taking a vehicle, the loss is

the value of the vehicle even if the vehicle is recovered immediately."

See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,

§ 2F1.1, comment. (n.7), § 2B1.1, comment. (n.2) (Nov. 1994). Under

this provision, it is irrelevant to the determination of the amount of

loss that the vehicle was recovered by repossession of it. The inclusion of the full value of the property taken, although recovered, is

appropriate. See United States v. Johnson, 908 F.2d 396, 398 (8th Cir.

1990). Finding no error in the district court's determination that the

amount of loss exceeded $20,000, we affirm Curtis's sentence.

In conclusion, we affirm Curtis's convictions and his sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 5