# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 16 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Raym on d C or te z

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 13 Fil ed : M arch 4, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BYE, SMI TH, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Raym on d Co rte z was co nv ic te d aft er a jury tri al of on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se , fic ti t io us , or frau du le nt m at eri al st at em en t, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 2)

.The di st ric t co ur t i mp os ed a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s ran ge se nt en ce of 21 m on th s' 1
im pr is on m en t. Co rte z n ow ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. W e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d
Co rte z was ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se , fic ti ti ou s, or frau du le nt

m at eri al st at em en t, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 2)

. The ch arg e st em m ed fro m

a pu rp or te d fal s e st at em en t th at Co rte z m ad e to a Uni te d St at es Po st al In sp ect or in ve st ig at in g a c o n s p i r a cy to ob ta in fed eral st ud en t lo an pr oc eed s by frau d. Co rte z

en te red in to a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t in whi ch he ag reed to pl ead gu il ty to th e ch arg e. The pl ea ag reem en t in cl ud ed th e fo ll owi ng st ip ul at io n, in
whi ch Co rte z ad m it te d t o t he fol lo win g fa ct s:

A. On o r ab ou t Octo be r 13
, 20 07
, de fen da nt 's so n an d ot he rs at te m pt ed to g e t C.Z. to cas h a fed eral st ud en t lo an pr oc eed s ch eck at a ch eck -cas h i n g es ta bl is hm en t ne ar a sp eci fic gr oc ery st or e on Fi rs t Ave nu e in Ced ar Rap id s, Io wa. Defen da nt was wit h hi s so n an d th e ot he rs at th e t i me a n d d r ov e th em to th e area of th e ch eck -cas hi ng es ta bl is hm en t in de fen da nt ' s bl ack Hum m er

ve hi cl e. Rat he r th an cas h th e ch eck
, C.Z. to ok th e ch eck an d fle d

o n f o o t

. Defen da nt an d th e ot he rs ch as ed C.Z. in de fen da nt 's bl ack Hum m er wit h de fen da nt dr iv in g th e ve hi cl e. C.Z[.] ran in to th e gr oc ery s t o r e , a nd de fen da nt an d th e ot he rs le ft th e area in de fen da nt 's b la ck Hum m er.

B. In Nov em

be r 20 07
, a Uni te d St at es Po st al In sp e ct or (In sp ect or )

was in ve st ig at in g a sc h e m e to de frau d th e Uni te d St at es Dep art m en t of Edu cat io n co nc ern in g th e fed eral st ud en t lo an pr oc eed s ch eck refe rred to in pa rag rap h A ab ov e an d th e in ci de nt i n v o l vi ng th e ch as e of C.Z. in th e Hum m er. On or ab o u t Nov em be r 20
, 20 07
, th e In sp ect or was pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e

ex ecu ti on of a se arch warra nt at de fen da nt 's so n's Ced ar Rap id s

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-res id en ce. Defen da nt d ro ve up to th e res id en ce in hi s bl ack Hum m er an d sp ok e to th e In sp ect or

. The In sp ect or id en ti fie d hi m se lf to de fen da nt as a Uni te d St at es Po st al In sp ect or

. The In sp ect or as ke d de fen da nt if de fen da nt kn e w an y th in g ab ou t a bl ack Hum m er ch as in g an in di vi du al do wn Fi rs t Ave nu e ab ou t a

m on th pr io r. De f

e n d an t fal se ly de ni ed kn owi ng an y th in g ab ou t th e c h as e. Defen da nt m ad e th e fal se st at em en t to th e In sp ect or wi l l f u l l y an d kn owi ng th at hi s st at em en t was fal se

. The fal se st at em en t was m at eri al to th e In sp ect or 's i nv es ti ga ti on

.

Co rte z "ag ree[ d] t h i s s t i p ul at io n [co ul d] b e us ed ag ai ns t [h im ] at an y ti m e in

an y pr oc eed in g sh ou ld [h e] vi ol at e or refu se to fo ll ow th ro ug h on th is pl ea ag reem en t,

reg ard le ss of whe th er th e pl ea ag reem en t ha s be e n a c c e p t e d by th e Co ur t." At a ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , Co rte z di d no t fo ll ow th ro ug h on th e pl ea ag reem en t an d di d

no t p le ad gu il ty.

Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e cas e was tri ed to a jury. The fact ua l st ip ul at io n was ad m it te d
in to ev id e n c e a t tri al

. Co rte z m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al at th e cl os e of th e
go ve rn m en t's cas e an d ren ewed th at m ot io n at th e cl os e of al l ev id en ce. The di st ric t

co ur t den ie d th e m ot io ns

. The jury fo un d Cor te z gu il ty of m ak in g a fal se , fic ti ti ou s,

or frau du le nt m at eri al st at em en t, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 2)

.

At se nt en ci ng , ov er Co rte z's ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d a ba se of fen se le ve l of si x un de r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(D) ba se d on it s fin di ng of a lo ss am ou nt of
be twee n $3 0,0 00 an d $7 0,0 00

. Als o ov er Co rte z's ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d

a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1

. The co ur t cal cu la te d an ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge of 15 to 21 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. It
ul ti m at el y

sen te nc ed Co rte z to 21 m on th s' i m pr is on m en t.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Co rte z arg ue s th at (1 ) th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury's ve rd ic t, (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r

-3

-ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce as a res ul t of hi s te st im on y at tri al
, (3 ) th e lo ss am ou nt at tri bu te d

to hi m un de r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 was no t s u p p o r te d by th e ev id en ce, an d (4 ) hi s

se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

A. Su ff ic ie nc y o f t he Evid en ce "We rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce d e n ov o, con st ru in g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e ve rd ic t and wil l o nl y ov ert ur n th e co nv ic ti on if no

reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d [Co rte z] gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t." Uni te d St at es

v. Ji ra k
, 72 8 F.3 d 80 6, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "On ap p e a l
, th e

e v i d en ce is vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi n g

ev id en ti ary co nf

l i ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le
in fere nc es dr awn fro m th e ev id en ce th at su pp or t th e jury's ve rd ic t." Uni te d St at es v. Hin oj os a , 72 8 F .3d 78 7, 7 89 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Co rt ez was co nv ic te d of m ak in g a fal se , fic ti ti ou s, or frau du le nt m at eri al

st at em en t, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 2)

.

" To es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 10 01
, th e Gov ern m e n t mu s t pr ov e th at : '(1 ) th e de fen da nt m ad e a s ta te m en t; (2 ) th e st at em en t was fal se , f ic ti ti ou s or frau du le nt as th e d e f e n d a n t kn ew; (3 ) th e de fen da nt

m ad e th e st at em en t kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y ; (4 ) th e s t at em en t was wit hi n th e juri sd ic ti on of a fed eral ag en cy ; an d (5 ) th e st at em en t was

m at eri al .'" Uni te d St at es v. Rice
, 4 4 9 F

. 3 d 88 7, 89 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Joh ns on , 93 7 F.2d 39 2, 39 6 (8t h Cir. 19 91 )).

Uni te d S ta te s v. McK

an ry , 62 8 F .3d 10 10 , 10 18 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd
, we co nc lu de th at su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts th e jury's ve rd ic t. In fact , th e d et ai le d fa ct ua l s ti pu la ti on co nt ai ne d i n C or te z's writ te n pl ea ag reem en t an d en te re d in to evi de nc e at tr ia l sa ti sf ie s a l l th e el em en ts of § 10 01 (a)( 2)

. In th at st ip ul at io n, Co rte z ad m it te d th at he "fa ls el y de ni ed " to a "Un it ed
St at es P o s t a l In sp ect or " th at he kn ew "an y th in g ab ou t th e ch as e." He ad m it te d to -4

-m ak in g "t he fal se st at em en t to th e In sp ect or wil lfu ll y an d kn owi ng th at hi s st at em en t

was fal se ." He al so ad m it te d th at th is "fa ls e st at em en t was m at eri al to th e In sp ect or 's
in ve st ig at io n." Thu s, th e fact ua l st ip ul at io n sa ti sf ie s al l fiv e el em en ts of § 10 01 (a)( 2)

.

B. Se nt en ci ng Co rte z al so arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t p ro ced ur al ly erred in cal cu la ti ng hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge a n d t h at hi s se nt en ce of 21 m on th s' im pr is on m en t is

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

"When we rev ie w th e im

po si ti on of se n t e n c e s , whe th er in si de or ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , we ap pl y a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ." Uni te d St at es

v

. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci t a t i o n s

om it te d)

. Im

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry G uid el ine s ra nge co nst itu te s pr oc edur al

erro r. Id

. "In th e ab se nc e of pr oc ed ur al erro r be l o w , we sh ou ld th en co ns id er th e

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d un de r an ab us e-o f-d i s cret io n
st an da rd ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Und er th i s s t a n d a rd
, we "t ak e in to

acco un t t he to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces , i nc lu di ng th e ex te nt of a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ." Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. On ap pe al
, we m ay ap pl y

a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss to a wit hi n

- Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. Id

. In ev al ua ti ng
t h e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce, we "m us t gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on th at th e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le
, jus ti fy th e

ex te nt of t he va ria nc e." Id . at 4 61 –6 2 (q uo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

1. Pro ced ur al Err or Co rte z al le ge s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t p r oc ed ur al ly erre d in ap pl y in g th e two

le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce an d cal cu l a t i n g t h e am ou nt of lo ss be twee n $ 30 ,00 0 a nd $7 0,0 00

.

-5

-a. Obs tr uc ti on of Ju st ic e Co rte z arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t e rro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d a two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t f

o r o bs tru ct io n of jus ti ce. Co rte z co nt en ds th at co nf li ct s be twee n hi s
te st imo n y a n d th at of ot he r wit ne ss es do no t es ta bl is h th at he was di sh on es t or wil lfu ll y m is le ad in g. He m ai nt ai ns th at , b y th e ti m e of tri al
, th e m ajor it y of ev en ts di sc u s s ed in te st im on y were fiv e y ears ol d an d th at th e ev en t in qu es ti on la st ed

ap pr ox im at el y

fiv e to ten m in ut es

.

Sect io n 3 C1 .1 o f U.S.S.G. pro vi de s:

If (1 ) th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d, or at te m

pt ed to ob st ru c t or im

pe de
, th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng o f t h e in st an t of fen se of

co nv ic ti on , an d (2 ) th e ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t rel at ed to (A) th e de fen da nt 's of fen se of co nv ic ti on an d an y rel ev an t co nd uc t; or (B) a cl os el y rel at ed of fen se , in crea se th e o ffen se lev el by 2 lev el s.

Sect io n 3 C1 .1

is no t in te nd ed to pu ni sh a de fen da nt fo r th e ex erci se of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. A d e f

en da nt 's de ni al of gu il t (o th er th an a de ni al of gu il t un de r

oa th th at co ns ti tu te s pe rjury), refu sa l to ad m it gu il t or pr ov id e in fo rm at io n to a pr ob at io n offi cer, or refus al to en te r a pl ea of gui lt y is

no t a ba si s fo r ap pl ic at io n of th is pr ov is io n. In ap pl y in g th is pr ov is io n in res pe ct to al le ge d fal se te st im on y or st at em en ts by th e de fen da nt , th e

co ur t sh ou ld be co gn iz an t th at in accu rat e te s t i mon y or st at em en ts

so m et im es m ay res u l t fro m co nf us io n, m is ta ke , o r fau lt y m em or y an d, th us , no t al l in accu rat e te st im on y or st at em en ts n e c e s s a ril y refl ect a wil lfu l at te m

pt to ob st ru ct jus ti ce.

Id . c m t. n.2 . " [C]o mm i t t i ng , s ub or ni ng , o r at te m pt in g to su bo rn pe rjury" are "t y pe s of co nd uc t t o wh ic h t hi s en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s." Id . cm t. n .4(B ).

-6

-"A wit ne ss te st ifyin g un de r oath " co m m it s pe rjury whe n he "g iv es fal se te st im on y co nc ern in g a m at eri al m at te r wit h th e wil lfu l in te nt to pr ov id e fal se te st im o n y." U n i te d St at es v. Dun ni

ga n , 50 7 U.S. 87
, 94
, 11 3 S. Ct

. 11 11
, 12 2 L. Ed. 2d 44 5 (1 99 3)
, po ss ib ly ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Uni te d St at es v. W

el ls
, 51 9 U.S. 48 2, 11 7 S. Ct

. 92 1, 13 7 L. Ed. 2d 10 7 (1 99 7)

. Bec au se fal se te st im on y m ay in st ead be th e res ul t of "co nf us io n, m is ta ke
, or fau lt y m em or y ," di st ric t co ur ts "m us t rev ie w th e

ev id en ce an d m ak e in de pe nd en t fin di ng s ne ces sa ry to es ta bl is h a wil lfu l im pe di m en t to or ob st ru ct i o n of jus ti ce" be fo re ap pl y in g a se nt en ce

en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1

. Id

. at 95
, 1 1 3 S

. Ct

. 11 11

. A di st ric t c o u rt m

us t th en de ci de by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce whe th er a de fen da nt co m m it te d p erju ry fo r § 3C 1.1 pu rp os es

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. St ul oc k
, 30 8 F.3 d 92 2, 92 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). W e rev ie w

su ch a fi nd in g fo r cl ear e rro r. Se e id

. at 92 5– 26

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. Pet ro vi c , 70 1 F .3d 84 9, 8 59 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t,

ex pl ai ni ng :

W it h reg ard to th e ad jus tm en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, th e Co ur t

m us t m ak e th is as se ss m en t in de pe nd en t of th e jury's ve rd ic t, an d I fin d b y a p r ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt di d co m mi t pe rjury at tri al in m ak in g st at em en ts un de r oa th in fro nt of th e jury an d Co ur t fo r th e pu rp os e of tryin g to av oi d co nv ic ti on

. The se were m at eri al fal se st at em en ts

. The y were no t m ad e ou t of co nf us io n or m is ta ke

. The y

were de fin it el y w i l l f

ul . An d as I sa id , t he y were m at eri al be cau se th ey

wen t t o t h e he art of th e cas e. So th e ob st ru ct io n of ju st ic e is
ap pr op ri at el

y sc or ed

.

(Em ph as is ad de d.) Co rte z arg ue s th at ou r rev ie w i s ha m pe red be cau se th e di st ric t

co ur t di d n ot cit e whi ch st at em en ts res ul te d in ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t. Bu t th e co ur t was rev ie win g Co rte z's ob jecti on to ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t as se t

-7

-fo rth in ¶ 16 of th e pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ), whi ch id en ti fie d th e fact ua l st at em en ts

at is su e:

Acco rd in g to th e pr os ecu to r's of fen se co nd uc t st at em en t, th e de fen da nt

co m m it te d pe rjury du rin g hi s te st im on y at tri al by fal se ly cl ai m in g th at In sp ect or [Ro na ld ] Je well on ly as ke d hi m ab ou t an as sa ul t an d ba tt ery du rin g th e Nov em

be r 20
, 20 07
, in te rv ie w; fal se ly te st ifyin g th at he di d

no t ad m it lying to In sp ect or Je well whe n he was re-i nt erv ie wed on Apr il 4, 20 12 ; an d fal se ly te st ifyin g th a t t h e fact ua l st at em en t in th e writ te n p l e a ag reem en t was no t tru e. The refo re, a two -le ve l in crea se fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce i s re co m m en de d.

In ap pl y in g th e en ha nc em en t, th e co ur t co m pl ie d wit h Petr ov ic
, as it co nf irmed
th at it ha d in de pe nd en tl y as se ss ed th e jury's ve rd ic t an d fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of
th e ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt di d co m m it pe rjury at tri al in m ak in g m at eri al ly fal se
st at em en ts un de r oa th in fro nt of th e jury. A rev ie w of th e reco rd sh ows th at Co rte z's

te st im on y at tri al
, in whi ch he cl ai m ed th at In sp ect or Je well as ke d hi m on ly ab ou t an

as sa ul t an d ba tt ery d ur in g th e Nov em be r 20 , 2 00 7 in te rv ie w, i s di rect ly co nt ra r y to th e fact ua l st ip ul at io n th at Co rte z ag reed to i n th e writ te n pl ea ag reem en t.
A cco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g th e ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t.

b. Lo ss Co rte z co nt en ds th at th e co ur t's lo ss cal cu la ti on of $4 0,0 00 la ck s su pp or t in th e

reco rd be cau se he ne ve r wil lfu ll y pa rti ci pa te d in th e sc he m e to de frau d and was no t ch arg ed wit h do in g so

. Co rte z co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce es ta bl is he d th at su m s pa id

to hi m by hi s so n, Mi ch ael Co rte z, was du e to Mi ch ael 's pe rs on al in de bt ed ne ss t o Co rte z an d no t be cau se of a bu si ne ss arra ng em en t be twee n th em

. He al so arg ue s th at

no rel at io ns hi p ex is ts be twee n th e ch arg ed frau du le nt st at em en ts an d a $4 0,0 00 lo ss be cau se th e ch eck at i ss ue du rin g t he ch as e was on ly for $3 ,30 0. He co nc lu de s th at

no fur th er m on et ary lo ss is att rib ut ab le to th e fal se st at em en t.

-8

-"Th e go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of p r o v i n g t he am ou nt of lo ss by a

pr ep on de ran ce of the ev id en ce." Uni te d St at es v. Sa mpl e , 21 3 F.3d 10 29
, 10 34 (8 th
Ci r. 20 00 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's fact ua l f in di ng s
reg ard in g t he am ou nt of l os s fo r cl ear e rro r." Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

At s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d " th at th e am ou nt of th e lo ss was a s s et fo rth in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n r e p o r t , P arag rap h 20
, m or e th an $3 0,0 00 bu t le ss th an $7 0,0 00 ." The co ur t fo un d "am pl e e v id en ce th at [Co rte z] di d rece iv e $4 0,0 00 of th e pr oc eed s fro m th e sc he m e an d th at th at am ou nt of lo ss wo u ld ha ve be en reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to hi m an d wit hi n th e sc op e of th e rel ev an t co nd uc t th at he ag reed to joi nt ly und ert ak e." In tu rn , ¶ 20 of t he PSR p ro vi de s:

Th e de fen da nt pa rti ci pa te d in th at sc he m e by pr ov id in g so m e of t h e in it ia l su pp li es th at were us ed to co m m it th e sc he m e, m ov in g s om e of th e ev id en ce in or de r to ev ad e d et ect io n by la w en fo rcem en t, an d
tra ns po rti ng th e p art ic ip an ts in th e of fen se to cas h on e of th e fin an ci al ai d c he ck s t ha t h ad be en un la wfu ll y ob ta in ed

. . . .

The de fen da nt 's of

fen se of co nv ic ti on in vo lv ed m ak in g a fal se st at em en t reg ard in g hi s in vo lv em en t in ch as in g an in di vi du al who to ok of f wit h a $3 ,32 3 c he ck fro m

th e fi na nc ia l ai d s ch em e . . . .

The ev id en ce in th is cas e es ta bl is he s t ha t t he de fen da nt pa rti ci pa te d i n

a f i n a n c i al ai d sc he m e an d th at he rece iv ed ap pr ox im at el y $4 0,0 00 of th e pr oc eed s f

r o m th at sc he m e. The fact th at th e de fen da nt rece iv ed $4 0,0 00 of th e pr oc eed s fro m th e fin an ci al ai d frau d sc he m e es ta bl is he s th at th at am ou nt of lo ss wou ld ha ve be en reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to hi m

an d wit hi n th e sc op e of th e rel ev an t co nd uc t th a t he ag reed to joi nt ly

un de rta ke

.

Tria l te st im on y s up po rts th e PSR's fact ua l st at em en ts

. Sp eci fic al ly, Mi ch ael

te st ifi ed th at Co rte z di d "g et

. . . m on ey fr o m t h e sc he m e fro m ot he r ch eck s." He

te st ifi ed th at Co rte z "p ro ba bl y [rec ei ve d] 40 gr an d" "fr om ot he r ch eck s in th e

sc he m e." Si m il arl y , Bren da Co rte z, Mi ch ael 's wife
, te st ifi ed th at Co rte z was "al way s
-9

-rece iv in g m on ey " fro m th e "s tu de nt lo an ch eck s." Sh e reca ll ed Co rte z sa y in g th at he

"n eed [ed ] th e m on ey " aft er C.Z. fl ed wit h t he ch eck

.

Co rte z arg ue s th at $4 0,0 00 in lo ss sh ou ld no t be at tri bu te d to hi m be cau se he

was no t a pa rti ci pa nt in th e sc he m e. The afo rem en ti on ed ev id en ce sh ows ot he rwis e. Co rte z's arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d th e lo ss en ha nc em en t be cau se "n o ot he r in di vi du al s were de frau de d as a res ul t of an y st at em en t m ad e by [Co rte z] th at ev en in g" al so fai ls be cau se , as th e go ve rn m en t po in ts ou t, Co rte z m ad e
t h e fal se st at em en t to th e Uni te d St at es Po st al In sp ect or to co nc eal th e sc he m e a n d

av oi d de te ct io n; th eref

or e, th e st at em en t was m ad e in fu rth eran ce of th e sc he m e. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Fin ck
, 40 7 F.3 d 90 8, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ("Du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n, Fi nc k m ad e two m at eri al ly fal se st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t offi ci al s .

. . . The se
st at em en ts le d la w e n f

o r c e men t as tra y an d al lo wed hi m to fu rth er hi s frau du le nt

sc he m e du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n." ). Mo rev er, co ur ts h a v e reco gn iz ed th at "'[a ]voi da nc e of de te ct io n an d pr ev en ti on of reco ve ry of m on ey lo st by t h e vi ct im s

are wit hi n, an d of

te n a m a t e r i a l p a r t of

, th e il le ga l sc he m e. Fu rth er pr of it fro m th e

sc he me to de frau d, as su ch
, m ay be ov er, an d y et th e sc he m e it se lf be no t en de d.'"
Uni te d St at es v. Red

co rn , 52 8 F.3 d 72 7, 74 1 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Ri ed el , 12 6 F .2d 81 , 83 (7t h C ir. 1 94 2) ).

The refo re, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in cal cu la ti ng th e am ou nt of l os s.

2. Su bs ta nt iv e Rea so na bl en es s Fi na ll y , Co rte z arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se it fai ls to acco un t pr op erl y fo r hi s go od wor ks in th e co m m un it y , th e la ck of se ve rit y of hi s co nd uc t, an d t he av ai la bi li ty and de te rren t ef fect of a pro ba ti on ary se nt en ce.

"[W] e no te th at [Co rte z's ] wit hi n- gu id el in es se nt en ce is pr es um pt iv el y

reas o n a b l e." Uni te d St at es v. Rod dy
, 53 3 F. App 'x 68 4, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (p er

cu ria m ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Af te r rev ie win g t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th at Co rte z h as -1 0-no t reb ut te d th is pr es um pt io n. In im

po si ng th e 21 -m on th se nt en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t

st at ed th at it "h a[d ] care fu ll y co ns id ered al l th e st at ut or y fact or s at 18 Uni te d Stat es Co de Sect io n 35 53 (a)," "co ns id ered th e tri al ev id en ce," co ns id ered "ar gu m en ts an d
ch arac te r le tt ers ," an d "ca refu ll y co ns id ered th e or al an d writ te n arg um en ts of de fens e

co un se l an d t he rep ly by

th e Uni te d S ta te s" reg ard in g a va ria nc e.

The di st ric t co ur t's pl acement of "g reat er em ph as is in th is cas e on fact or s th at fav or ed a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ad vi so ry ran ge

. . . th an on ot he r § 35 53 (a) fact or s th at

m ig ht fav or a m or e le ni en t se nt en ce is a pe rm is si bl e ex erci se of th e co ns id erab le
di sc ret io n av a i l a b l e to a se nt en ci ng co ur t un de r th e po st

- Boo ker reg im e." Uni te d 2
St at es v. Rue la s–

M e n de z , 55 6 F.3 d 65 5, 65 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Hav in g rev ie wed th e

se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt , we co nc lu de th at "t he di st ric t co ur t th or ou gh ly co ns id ered th e rel ev an t f

a c t o r s se t fo rth in § 35 53 (a) an d reac he d a su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

co nc lu si on ." Uni te d S ta te s v. Ba ue r , 62 6 F .3d 10 04 , 10 10 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

Uni te d S ta te s v. Bo ok

er , 54 3 U.S. 2 20 (20 05 ). 2 -1 1-