A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . S h e a l s o a d mi t t e d t o o n e c o u n to f Cr i mi n a l F o r fe i tu r e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. 1 § § 9 8 1 , 1 9 5 6 , a n d 1 9 6 1 , a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t10,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J AN NI CE M CLA I N SCH M I DT,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 1412 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 1 0 3 - REB )

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y and AN DE RS ON , C i r cui tJ udges , and BROR BY , S e n io r C irc u it J udge.

J anni ce M cLai n Schm i dtpl eade d gui l tyt o tw o count s of Secur i t i es Fr aud and A i di ng and A bett i ng i n vi ol at i on of 15 U . S. C . §§ 77q( a) ( 1) and 77x and 18 U . S. C . § 2. T he di s t r i ctcourts ent ence d hert o 60 m onths i m pr i s onm enton 1 t he fi r s tcountand 48 mont hs on the s econd c ount , t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y , for- 2-

a t ot al s ent ence of 108 m ont hs . She appea l s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent and s ent ence . W e vac at e hers ent ence and r emand. FACTS T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om a Ponzi s cheme i n w hi ch Schmi dtpart i ci pat ed. T he governm entes t i m at es t he aggr egat e i nt ended l os s t o vi ct i m s fr om t he s cheme at o v e r $ 5 0 m ill io n . In v e sto rs w e re to ld th a t th e yw e re in v e stin g in a h ig h -y ield inv estm en t pro g ram an d that their i n v estm en ts w o u ld b e ins u red ag ains t l o ss. I n r eal i t y , i nves t orfunds w er e us ed forotherpurpos es , i ncl udi ng paym ent s t o ear l i er in v e s to rs a n d to th o s e w h o ra n th e s c h e m e . Schm i dt ’ s pl ea a gr eementdes cr i bed herpart i ci pat i on i n the s cheme: I n the fi r s tpartof 2001, [Schm i dt ] w as s ol i ci t ed bydefe ndant C h a rle s L e w is to in v e st m o n e yin th e S m itty ’s, L L C h ig h -y ield i nves t m entpr ogr am. [Schm i dt ] i ni t i al l yunder s t ood thatt he pr ogr am us ed i nves t orfunds t o t r ade medi um t erm not es ( M T N s ) w i th l i t t l e or no r i s k beca us e funds i nves t ed w er e mai nt ai ned i n a non- depl et i ng b a n k a c c o u n t an d in su re d a g a in st lo ss . In th e fa ll o f 2 0 0 1 , [S c h m id t] beca m e the bookkee perforSm i t ty ’ s , w hi ch ent ai l ed per form i ng the accou nti ng necessaryfor the p repar at i on of m on thlyst at em ents , p rep aring ch ec k s fo r si g n ature , an d sen d ing ch ec k s to inv esto rs s eeki ng t o w i t hdr aw m oney , al l att he di r ect i on of defendantN or m an S c h m id t. A t o r a b o u t th e sa m e tim e , [S c h m id t] b e g a n to so licit in v e sto rs in th e S m itty ’s h ig h -y ield in v e stm e n t p ro g ra m a n d to r e c e i v e c o mmi s s i o n s fo rp e r s o n s wh o m s h e b r o u g h ti n t o t h e p r o g r a m. [S ch m idt] lat er b ec am e a w are that sim il ar inv estm en t pro g ram s w ere being m arket ed thr ou gh [other] enti t i es. D uri ng t he ti m e t hat [Sch m i dt] w as i nv olved w i th these pr ogr ams, N or m an Schmi dtw as t he pr i nci pal and oper at orof Sm i t t y ’ s and the otherent i t i es named above, C har l es L ew i s s ol i ci t ed i nves t or s , and G eor ge A l an W eed purpor t edl yarr anged fort he i ns ur ance on t he i nves t m ent . [Schm i dt ] l earned ats om e poi ntt hatC ountI i nvol ved herhel pi ng C har l es L ew i s t o per s uade a pr evi ous 2 acqua i nt ance of Schm i dt ’ s t o i nves t$5, 000 i n the Sm i t ty ’ s hi gh- y i el d i nves t m ent pr ogr am. Schm i dtfai l ed t o di s cl os e a mat er i al fac tt o the vi ct i m i n connec t i on w i t h t he s ol i ci t at i on: t hatL ew i s had a pr i orC ol or ado fe l onyconvi ct i on. C ountI I i nvol ved an i nci dentt hatoccurr ed af t ert he U ni t ed St at es governm ents ei zed the Sm i t t y ’ s , L L C bank ac count s . A n i nves t orpr ovi ded a cas hi er ’ s chec k i n the amountof $25, 000 t o Sm i t ty ’ s . B eca us e of the s ei zur e of Sm i t t y ’ s bank ac count s , t hi s chec k coul d no l ongerbe negot i at ed. Schm i dtand N or m an Schmi dtdr ove t o t he vi ct i m ’ s hom e t o per s uade hi m t o pr ovi de a cas hi er ’ s chec k t o r epl ace t he or i gi nal chec k. Schm i dtdi d notdi s cl os e t o the vi ct i m L ew i s ’ s fel onyconvi ct i on, t hatt he funds w oul d notbe us ed t o tr ade M T N s , and thatt he Sm i t t y ’ s bank ac count s had bee n s ei zed byfede r al l aw enfor cementagent s . Schm i dtand N or m an Schmi dtacc om pani ed the vi ct i m t o a bank, w her e a c heck w as dr aw n pay abl e t o a di ffe r entent i ty . Schm i dtl at er as s i s t ed i n openi ng a new acc ounti n the name of thatent i ty , fr om w hi ch the (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 3- M i chae l Sm i t h w as i nvol ved w i th C har l es L ew i s and C api t al H ol di ngs . G eor ge B er os w as know n t o [Schm i dt ] as a partnerof N or m an Schmi dti n M onar ch C api t al H ol di ngs and the tr aderof the m edium t erm no t es. [S chm i dt] con t i nu ed to ass i sti n the ope rat i on of S m i t ty ’s , i ncl udi ng s ol i ci t i ng i nves t or s , m ai nt ai ni ng i nves t oracc ount s , and p re p a rin g a n d se n d in g m o n th lysta tem e n ts to in v e sto rs w h ich fa lse ly r epr es ent ed the s t atus of the i nves t m ent , up t o and unt i l the exe cut i on of var i ous s ear ch and s ei zur e w arr ant s s t emm i ng fr om the in v e stig a tio n o f

th is c a se o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 3 . S h e a lso p a rticip a ted in so licitin g in v e stm e n ts th ro u g h a n d se n d in g m o n th lysta tem e n ts to i n v e s t o r s i n o t h e re n t i t i e s [ . ] Du r i n g th i s p e r i o d , [ S c h mi d t ] b e c a me aw ar e thati nves t or s ’ funds w er e notbei ng depos i t ed i nt o nondepl et i ng acc ount s , w er e notbei ng us ed forthe purpos es r epr es ent ed t o i nves t or s . . . and thatno tr adi ng of M T N s had t aken pl ace . R . , doc. 750, at4- 5. T h e tw o c o u n ts to w h ich S c h m id t p led g u iltyin v o lv e d a c o m p a ra tiv e ly s m al l s um of m oney , $30, 000. T he pl ea a gr eementl i s t ed s ever al s ent enci ng 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 vi ct i m ’ s funds w er e l at erw i t hdr aw n w i th Schm i dt ’ s as s i s t ance and us ed for p u rp o s e s i n c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ma d e t o th e v i c t i m.

- 4- fac t or s on w hi ch Schmi dtand the governm entdi s agr eed, i ncl udi ng the amountof l os s t o be att r i but ed t o Schm i dtforadvi s orys ent enci ng gui del i ne purpos es . T he governm entcont ended thatt he ent i r e i nt ended l os s of m or e than $50 mi l l i on s houl d be att r i but ed t o Schm i dt , r ai s i ng heroffe ns e l evel by24 l evel s . Schm i dt n o te d h e r d is a g re e m e n t, b u t d id n o t in itia lly p ro v id e a n a lte rn a te fig u re . T h e p rob ati o n d ep artm en t prep are d a P rese n tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt ( PSIR). T he PSI R s t at ed thataft eraddi t i onal anal y s i s , the governm entnow bel i eved thatt he t ot al i nt ended l os s attr i but abl e t o Schm i dt ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the s cheme w as betw een $20 mi l l i on and $50 mi l l i on. T hi s adj us t m entw as appr opr i at e, t he PSI R opi ned, beca us e Schmi dthad notbeen i nvol ved i n the i ni t i al par tof the s cheme t o defr aud. PSIR, at4. T he PSI R fur thers t at ed that “[d] efe ns e couns el advi s ed the pr obat i on offi certhathe bel i eves . . . the l os s t o be s i gni fi cant l yl es s , buthas noty etpr ovi ded the pr obat i on offi cera w r i t t en s t at ementexpl ai ni ng hi s fi nal l os s cal cul at i on. ” Id. B as ed on addi t i onal i nform at i on s uppl i ed bythe governm ent , the pr obat i on depart m entl at ercal cul at ed the i nt ended l os s attr i but abl e t o Schm i dtat $ 2 7 ,2 7 6 ,4 4 2 .9 3 . Id. at16. T hi s fi gur e w as bas ed on the i nves t ordepos i t s i nt o t he “non- depl et i ng acc ount s . ” Id. T he PSI R furthernot ed thatdefe ns e couns el and- 5-

t he governm entagr eed thatt hi s amount s houl d be r educe d bythe pr i nci pal re tu rn e d to in v e sto rs. T h e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t b e liev e , h o w e v e r, th a t th e re p a id pri ncipal w ou l d reduc e t he loss am ou nt bel ow $2 0 m i l l i on . F or an i ntended l oss betw een $20 mi l l i on t o $50 m i l l i on, the G ui del i nes pr ovi ded foran i ncr eas e of 22 le v e ls . T h e P S IR a d o p te d th is lo s s ra n g e in its c a lc u la tio n s . T he P S IR t hu s cal culat ed S chm i dt’ s advis orygu i deli ne sentence as foll ow s: B a se O ffe n se L e v e l: 6 E nhance m entbas ed on i nt ended l os s of $20, 000, 000 +22 butl es s t han $50, 000, 000 En h a n c e me n tfo r5 0 o rmor e v i c t i ms + 4 En h a n c e me n tfo ru s e o f “ s o p h i s t i c a t e d me a n s ” + 2 A dj us t ed O ffe ns e Level : 34 Id. a t 2 1 -2 3 . T h e A dju ste d O ffe n se L e v e l w a s th e n re d u c e d b yth re e lev e ls b e c a u se S c h m id t ac c e p ted re sp o n sib ili tyfo r h e r c rim e s, re su lti n g in a n a g g re g a te le v e l o f 3 1 . Schm i dthad no pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s . A ccor di ngl y , hercr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as I , w hi ch, w hen combi ned w i th the A dj us t ed O ffe ns e Level of 3 1 , y ie ld e d a n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e ra n g e o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

1 0 8 to 1 3 5 m o n th s . B utbeca us e the s t atut or ym axi m um penal tyforthe tw o offe ns es w as onl yfi ve y ear s eac h, t he PSI R r educe d t he hi gh end of the r ange t o 120 m onths , y i el di ng an a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s e n te n c e o f 1 0 8 to 1 2 0 m o n th s . See i d. at31.- 6-

Schm i dtfi l ed obj ect i ons t o t he PSI R , i n w hi ch s he s t at ed “the D efe ndant does noty etknow w hatamount of deduc t i on t o the gr os s l os s num bers houl d be appl i ed. . . . I f the deduc t i on t akes the l os s bel ow [] $20, 000, 000, the ca l cul at i on change s [. ] ” D efe ndant ’ s O bj ect i ons , at2. She al s o r eques t ed a de partur e fr om the a d v isoryg u ideline s en tenc ing ca lculati o n , arg u ing that the g o v ern m en t’ s fig u re “ v a s tly e x c e e d s th e D e fe n d a n t’ s p a rt ic ip a tio n in th is in v e s tm e n t s c h e m e ,” w hi ch i n hervi ew s houl d have be en l i m i t ed t o i nves t m entfunds depos i t ed i n the Sm i t t y ’ s i nves t m entacc ount s and notthos e moni es r ai s ed byotherent i t i es “k n o w n as C ap it al H o lding s, M o n arc h C ap it al H o lding s, [a n d the] N o rth w estern G r oup. ” Id. at5. Schm i dtcal cul at ed the l os s r es ul t i ng fr om thi s m or e l i m i t ed p a rt ic ip a tio n a t $ 1 1 ,3 8 4 ,6 1 7 . Id. T he pr obat i on depart m entpr epar ed an a ddendum t o the PSI R . I tnot ed that t he g ov ernm ent had sup pli ed a revis ed loss fi gu re, adjust ed fo r r eturn t o invest ors, of $25, 656, 958. 96. A ddendum, atA - 1. T hi s r evi s ed fi gur e w oul d have no e ffe ct on t he advi s or ygui del i ne comput at i on, s i nce the amountof l os s s t i l l exce eded $20 m i l l i on. T he pr obat i on depart m entfur therr ej ect ed Schmi dt ’ s ar gum entthat her part i ci pati on shou l d b e l i m i t ed to the S m i t ty ’s accou nts , no t i ng that s he w as a r egi s t er ed age ntof M onar ch C api t al H ol di ngs , L L C , and thatm oneyw as tr a n s fe rr e d in to F a s tT ra c k , L L C , a n e n tity sh e c o n tr o lle d . D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, Schm i dtdi d nots peci fi cal l yr enew her o bje c tio n th a t th e lo s s c a lc u la tio n s h o u ld b e lim ite d to th e S m itty’s a c c o u n ts .- 7-

Sent enci ng T r . at25- 29. T he di s tr i ctcour tbr i efl yaddr es s ed herpr evi ous obj ect i ons t o t he l os s cal cul at i on, h o w e v e r, s ta tin g th a t th e yw e re “ o v e rr u le d . . . gener al l yfort he r eas ons s t at ed, ar gum ent s advanc ed, and author i t i es ci t ed byt he pr obat i on offi cerand the governm ent . ” Id. at41. T he courtthen ac cept ed “the pr es ent ence r eportand i t s concomi t antaddenda , i ncl udi ng the advi s or ys ent enci ng gui del i ne appl i cat i ons and ca l cul at i ons ther ei n, as an i nt egr al partof [i t s ] fi ndi ngs of fa ct . ” Id. I tfur t herdecl i ned t o departdow nw ar d fr om the advi s orygui del i ne r ange, agai n r efe r r i ng t o “the r eas ons s t at ed, ar gum ent s advanc ed, and author i t i es ci t ed byt he pr obat i on offi cerand the governm ent . ” Id. at42. A ft ercons i der i ng t he fa ct or s cont ai ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553, the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d Schm i dtas d e s c ri b e d a b o v e . A N A L Y S IS S ch m idt co n tend s tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred b yrely ing so lel yo n the P S IR t o det erm i ne the amountof l os s . She fur therar gues t hatt her e w as an i ns uffi ci ent fac tual bas i s t o hol d heracc ount abl e fora l os s i n exce s s of $20 m i l l i on. 1. St andard of R evi ew T h e p a rties d isa g re e c o n c e rn in g th e sta n d a rd o f re v iew , b u t itis n o w w e ll estab li sh ed . A fter Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w e r evi ew s e n te n c e s fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( percur i am). “[A ] s ent ence t hati s pr oper l ycal cul at ed undert he G ui del i nes i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Id. at1054;- 8-

s ee als o R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 24 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 -6 3 (2 0 0 7 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t a cour tof appe al s m ayappl ya pr es um pt i on fo r eas onabl enes s t o a w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence ) . I n cons i der i ng the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes , w e r evi ew i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s l egal d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 4 . W e re v iew c o m p lian c e w ith th e R u le s o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re d e n o v o . Un i t e dS ta t e s v . R o dr ig u ez - De lma , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 5 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 3 3 8 (2 0 0 7 ). 2. R el i an ce on P S IR F ed era l R u le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 2 (i )(3)(B ) req u ir es a sen tenc ing co u rt to m a k e a ru lin g o n a n yd isp u ted p o rtio n o f th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, u n les s it det erm i nes t hata rul i ng i s unnece s s arybeca us e the contr overt ed mat t erw i l l not a ffe c t s e n te n c in g . See a lso U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 6A 1. 3( b) ( 2002) ( r equi r i ng r es ol ut i on of di s put ed s ent enci ng fac t or s ats ent enci ng) . Schm i dt cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d nots at i s fyt he R ul e bec aus e i tfai l ed t o m ake a “cl earand i ndepende ntrul i ng” on the di s put ed amountof l os s and i ns t ead “mer el yadopt [ed] t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs and gui del i ne appl i cat i ons of the PSI R . ” Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 7 4 F . 3 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he di s t r i ctcour t“mayacc eptanyundi s put ed por t i on of the pr es ent ence r epor tas a fi ndi ng of fa ct . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) . W hen a de fenda nt al l eges a fa ctual i nacc ur acyi n t he PSI R , how ever , t he di s tr i ctcourtm us tr es ol ve- 9-

t he fa ctual di s put e and maynots i m pl yr efe rback t o the PSI R i t s el f t o defe atthe o bje c tio n . R o dr ig u ez - De lma , 4 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 . I n herobj ect i ons t o t he PSI R , Schm i dtdi s put ed heri nvol vementw i th the ent i t i es know n as C api t al H ol di ngs , M onar ch C api t al H ol di ngs , and the N or t hw es t ern G r oup. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notm ake a fi ndi ng conce rni ng w hetherSchm i dtw as i nvol ved w i th thes e ent i t i es . I ns t ead, i ts i m pl yadopt ed the P S IR ’s find ing s an d the g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en ts on this po int. U n d er Wi l l i a ms and otherper t i nentauthor i t y , t hi s w as nota s uffi ci entfi ndi ng. A r emand foran a p p ro p ri a te fin d in g is th e re fo re re q u ir e d . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ra ise s s e v e ra l ar g u m e n ts in o p p o sitio n to re m a n d . F irst, it ar gues t hatSchm i dtw ai ved orconce ded herchal l enge t o herpart i ci pat i on i n the ent i t i es ot hert han Sm i t t y ’ s byfai l i ng t o r ai s e the obj ect i on i n heri ni t i al s ubm i s s i on pr i ort o i s s uance of the PSI R and byfai l i ng t o r enew the ar gum entat t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. W e do notfi nd herar gum entw ai ved, how ever . T he PSIR spec i fi cal l yacknow l edged a nd addr es s ed the ar gum enti n ques t i on, w hi ch w a s ra is e d in S c h m id t’ s o bje c tio n s . See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( f) ( 1) ( es t abl i s hi ng pr ocedur e forobj ect i ons ) . T he PSI R ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng r emai ned i n cont ent i on at s ent enci ng, w her e the di s t r i ctcourtrul ed upon i tw i thoutthe nec es s aryfac tual fi ndi ng. S e c o n d , the g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t S c h m id t d id n o t ra ise a n a u th e n tic fac tual di s put e, butm er el ydi s put ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of theW e ac know l edge thatSchm i dtpr es ent ed herfac tual di s put e i n the cont ext 3 of a requ estfor a do w nw ard dep arture r at her than as a di rectat t ack o n h er offense lev e l. N e v e rth e les s, th e fa c tu a l d isp u te g o e s to th e n a tu re o f re lev a n t co n d u c t to be att r i but ed t o her , a fa ct orr el evantal s o t o det erm i ni ng the enha ncement re q u e ste d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t.

- 10- G ui del i nes . C hal l enges t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes al one do noti m pl i cat e R ul e 32’ s r equi r ementof a s peci fi c fi ndi ng as t o the ac cur acyof d is p u te d fa c ts . R o dr ig u ez - De lma , 4 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 ; Un itedS ta tes v . Win d le , 74 F. 3d 997, 1002 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . B utw hi l e Schmi dt ’ s chal l enge a ddr es s ed the appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes , r eques t i ng a dow nw ar d departur e, i tal s o r ai s ed a di s put ed fa ctual i s s ue forr es ol ut i on: w hetherSchm i dtpart i ci pat ed i n the fr aud p erp etrated thro u g h en ti ti es o ther tha n S m itty ’s. T h e d istri ct co u rtw as th ere fo re r equi r ed t o m ake a fi ndi ng t o r es ol ve thi s fac tual di s put e. T hi r d, t he governm entar gues thatSchm i dtw as r equi r ed t o offe revi dence b e y o n d h e r o w n p e rso n a l d e n ials to trig g e r th e d istric t co u rt’s f u rth e r in q u iryin to th e lo ss iss u e . It w a s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n to p ro v e th e e n h a n c e m e n t in S c h m id t’ s b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l r e s u ltin g f ro m h e r p a rt ic ip a tio n in th e s c h e m e . Wi l l i a ms , 374 F. 3d at947 ( s t at i ng governm entbear s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng s ent ence enhanc ement s under G ui del i nes ) . U s i ng the governm ent ’ s ow n dat a, 3 Schm i dtarr i ved ata s peci fi c buts ubs t ant i al l ys m al l erl os s fi gur e than that cont ai ned i n t he PSI R . T hi s pr ovi ded a s uffi ci entevi dent i arybas i s t o es t abl i s h a d is p u te d is s u e o f

fa c t, r e q u ir in g a s p e c ific fin d in g b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt .- 11-

T h e e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t S c h m id t w a s o rig in a llyre c ru ited a s a v ictim in to th e sc h e m e , an d o n lylate r b e c a m e a p a rticip a n t. T h e p lea a g re e m e n t lac k s d e tail conce r ni ng herpar t i ci pat i on i n s peci fi c as pect s of the s cheme. G i ven her o bjecti o n to the P S IR , the n ature an d ex tent o f h er p arti cipa ti o n w ere k eyfa ctors t o be r es ol ved i n det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange a nd her a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . See U. S . S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s M a n u a l § § 1 B1 . 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) and (B ) ( 20 02 ) ( add res si ng rel evan tcon du ct ), 2B 1. 1 cm t . 2 (addressi ng l oss c a lc u la tio n ). 3. Suffi ci ency of Evi dence Schm i dtal s o ar gues t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fyt he e n h a n c e m e n t. S h e c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o u ld o n lyre lyo n c o n d u c t to w h ich sh e p lea d e d g u iltyo r w h ich w a s p ro v e d to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . T hi s i s nott he l aw , how ever . “[S] o l ong as t he di s tr i ctcourtappl i es t he G u id e lin e s in a n a d v iso ry , rath e r th a n a m a n d a to ry , fa sh io n , itm a yre lyo n fa c ts found bya j udge t o be true bas ed on a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” Uni t ed S ta tes v . B u sta m a n te , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt t r e a t e d t h e G u i d e l i n e s a s a d v i s o ry a n d c o u l d t h e r e fo r e fi n d fa c t s b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e in se n ten c in g S c h m id t. W h ile its fin d in g h e re w a s in su fficie n t in l i ghtof the fa ctual di s put e, Schm i dt ’ s admi s s i on t o the r el evantconductw as not re q u ir e d .- 12-

Schm i dtal s o compl ai ns t hatthe di s tr i ctcourti m perm i s s i bl yr el i ed on hear s ayevi dence , i n t he form of bank de pos i ti nform at i on s ubm i t t ed bythe governm ent . Forhear s ayt o s erve as a bas i s fora s ent enci ng enhanc ement , the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r equi r e thatthe s t at ementpos s es s “s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t yt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy . ” U . S Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 6 A 1 .3 (a ) (2 0 0 2 ); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. D az ey , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 7 7 n .7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h is is n o t a h ig h sta n d a rd , fo r it re q u ire s o n ly “mi ni m al i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Fe n n e ll , 65 F. 3d 812, 813 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. B eaul i eu , 8 9 3 F . 2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir . 19 90 )) . T he ev i den ce before the d i stri ctcou rtcon cerni ng the am ou nt of l oss appea r s t o pos s es s s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy conce r ni ng t he ac tual l os s es i ncurr ed bythe vi ct i m s . W e dec l i ne t o addr es s at th is tim e , h o w e v e r, w h e th e r th is e v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n su fficie n tlyre liab le to s u p p o rt a p ro p e r fin d in g o n th e d is p u te d p a rt ic ip a tio n is s u e , h a d o n e b e e n m a d e . O n re m a n d fo r th e a d d iti o n a l fin d in g s w e h a v e o rd e re d , the d istric t co u rt sh o u ld det erm i ne w hetherfur t herpr ocee di ngs orthe r ece pt i on of addi t i onal evi dence on th is q u e s tio n a re re q u ir e d .- 13-

W e V A C A T E t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence , and R E M A N D forfur ther p ro c e e d in g s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge