NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 21a0522n.06

No. 20-6153

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

AARON M. JAMISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

KENTUCKY

Before: McKEAGUE, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Aaron M. Jamison appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him 

to 36 months of imprisonment and ordering him to pay $640,638.31 in restitution. As set forth 

below, we AFFIRM.

Jamison established and controlled Micah Group, LLC, a company that performed 

environmental remediation services for underground storage tank sites across Kentucky. The 

Kentucky Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank Branch (USTB) oversaw 

the remediation work and paid Micah Group for those services, which included drilling for 

groundwater monitoring wells and later removing the wells after the USTB determined that no 

further action was required at the underground storage tank site. Kentucky regulations provide for 

the proper abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells under the supervision of a certified well 

driller and the submission of a Uniform Kentucky Well Maintenance and Plugging Record. The 

record must document the abandonment work performed at the well and include an affirmation by 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 2 -

the certified well driller that the described work was done under the driller’s supervision. See 401 

Ky. Admin. Regs. 6:350. 

In January 2020, Jamison pleaded guilty to an information charging him with theft from an 

employee benefit plan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664; conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and unlawful storage of hazardous waste, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 6928(d)(2)(A). With respect to the mail fraud conspiracy, Jamison admitted that he and others 

signed and submitted paperwork to the USTB, including abandonment reports, plugging records,

and reimbursement claims that falsely stated that Micah Group had properly abandoned 

groundwater monitoring wells and that the work had been done under the supervision of a certified 

well driller. 

The offense level calculation in Jamison’s presentence report included a 14-level 

enhancement for a total loss amount in excess of $550,000 but less than $1,500,000. See U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). After Jamison objected to the loss amount attributed to the mail fraud 

conspiracy, the district court conducted a hearing for the purpose of determining the loss and 

restitution amounts. The district court calculated a loss amount of $652,141.30 involving about 

308 wells at 56 sites from 2013 through 2017. That amount included $792.30 per well paid by the 

USTB to Micah Group plus the costs paid by the State to inspect and remediate the work performed 

by Micah Group. The district court calculated Jamison’s guidelines range as 46 to 57 months of 

imprisonment based on a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of I. The district 

court sentenced Jamison below that range to 36 months of imprisonment followed by three years 

of supervised release and ordered him to pay $640,638.31 in restitution. The total restitution 

amount included $637,879.90 to the Kentucky State Treasurer, representing the loss amount 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 3 -

related to the mail fraud conspiracy reduced by $14,261.40 that the State withheld from Micah 

Group after discovering misrepresentations about the well abandonments.

1

On appeal, Jamison challenges the district court’s determination of the loss and restitution 

amounts arising from the mail fraud conspiracy. We review the district court’s determination of 

the loss amount attributed to a defendant under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 for clear error, while we review 

the district court’s methodology for calculating the loss de novo. United States v. Warshak, 631 

F.3d 266, 328 (6th Cir. 2010). We review the amount of restitution ordered by the district court 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sizemore, 850 F.3d 821, 824 (6th Cir. 2017). 

Jamison argues that the district court’s determination of the loss and restitution amounts 

went beyond the scope of the plea agreement, in which he admitted to actual knowledge of 

improper well abandonment at only one site in Jeffersonville, Kentucky. Although the plea 

agreement discussed the Jeffersonville site in particular, Jamison admitted facts demonstrating that 

the mail fraud conspiracy went beyond that site and lasted at least four years: 

Due to the inadequate cash reserves to operate Micah Group and the timeliness of 

the State’s claims reimbursement upon receipt of a report and claim for payment, 

particularly between the years of 2013 and 2017, abandonments would be left for 

field crews to perform despite the fact that a certified driller could not be on site 

supervising or ensuring that the abandonments were performed correctly or as 

Micah Group field employees may have indicated in notes they took.

(R. 8, Plea Agreement, PageID 21.) Jamison also admitted facts regarding the signing of plugging 

records “for the Jeffersonville site in 2016, and the majority of others,” clearly referencing the 

submission of fraudulent paperwork for other sites. (Id.) 

Regardless of whether the facts admitted by Jamison included sites other than the Jefferson 

site, “a District Court may rely on extra-verdict facts or on those other than which the defendant 

1 The total restitution amount also included payments to individuals for health insurance premiums 

and denied healthcare claims relating to Jamison’s theft from Micah Group’s employee benefit 

plans. That restitution is not at issue in this appeal. 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 4 -

has specifically admitted when it calculates his sentence.” United States v. Cook, 453 F.3d 775, 

777 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, the plea agreement expressly contemplated that the district court would 

consider conduct beyond the Jeffersonville site in determining the loss amount. It stated that 

Jamison’s “relevant conduct include[d] . . . claims submitted to the Kentucky Energy and 

Environment Cabinet between February 2004 and June 2017 fraudulently seeking payment for 

groundwater monitoring well abandonment work that was not performed correctly or at all.” (R. 

8, Plea Agreement, PageID 23.) And Jamison “specifically reserve[d] the right to contest the 

number of improperly abandoned wells, and any loss incurred by the Kentucky Energy and 

Environment Cabinet caused by the submission of claims for well abandonment work that was not 

performed correctly or at all.” (Id.) 

Jamison argues that the government did not satisfy its burden to prove the loss and 

restitution amounts by a preponderance of the evidence. For purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, the 

government bears the burden to prove the amount of loss—actual or intended—by a preponderance 

of the evidence. United States v. Riccardi, 989 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2021). With respect to an 

order of restitution, the government bears the burden of proving a victim’s actual loss by a 

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365, 388 (6th Cir. 2015). 

At the sentencing hearing, the government presented the testimony of Libby Zuege, a nowretired agent with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division who 

assisted in the investigation of Jamison’s activities related to the improper abandonment of 

groundwater monitoring wells. Jamison claims that “much of what Ms. Zuege testified to is 

unsubstantiated.” (Appellant’s Br. at 16.) 

Jamison first objects to Zuege’s testimony about her interview with Craig Music, 

complaining that Music was not available for cross-examination. But Zuege’s testimony about 

Music related to the storage of hazardous waste, not the improper abandonment of groundwater 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 5 -

monitoring wells. So it had no bearing on the district court’s calculation of the loss and restitution 

amounts related to the mail fraud conspiracy. 

To the extent that Jamison contends that Zuege’s testimony constituted hearsay and 

violated his right to confrontation, neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Confrontation 

Clause applies at sentencing. See United States v. Graham-Wright, 715 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 

2013). Jamison asserts that the district court applied an improper standard for accepting hearsay 

at sentencing: “The caveat is the evidence must have significant indicia—indicia of substantial 

significance. So we have to have something that would indicate that this would be acceptable 

evidence by the Court.” (R. 53, Sentencing Tr., PageID 463.) But the district court later articulated 

the proper standard—“sufficient indicia of reliability.” (Id. at PageID 476, 522.) See United States 

v. Mukes, 980 F.3d 526, 534 (6th Cir. 2020). The district court did not clearly err in finding that

Zuege’s testimony about her interviews with Micah Group’s employees was sufficiently reliable 

based on her testimony that she warned the employees that providing false information could 

subject them to prosecution for making a false statement. See United States v. Armstrong, 920 

F.3d 395, 398 (6th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e will reverse the district court’s finding of reliability only if 

it leaves us ‘with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” (quoting 

United States v. Darwich, 337 F.3d 645, 663 (6th Cir. 2003))). 

Jamison next objects to the government’s use of a summary chart to establish the State’s 

losses from Micah Group’s improper abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells. But “a

summary chart, when supported by additional evidence, can be used by the government to establish 

losses for the purposes of restitution.” United States v. Carmichael, 676 F. App’x 402, 412 (6th 

Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 296 (6th Cir. 2016)). Exhibit 14, a 

spreadsheet titled “86 MG ‘Top Tier,’” was created by the State and provided information about 

86 sites where Micah Group improperly abandoned groundwater monitoring wells. This 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 6 -

spreadsheet included the date when Micah Group submitted the abandonment report, the number 

of wells at the site purportedly abandoned by Micah Group after receiving a “no further action” 

letter from the USTB, the name of the certified well driller who affirmed that the work at the site 

had been done under the driller’s supervision, the amount paid by the State to Micah Group, and 

the amount paid by the State to contractors to investigate and remediate Micah Group’s work. The 

spreadsheet also included commentary about the contractors’ findings at each site and photographs 

of the wells. This exhibit, combined with Zuege’s testimony, Jamison’s admissions in the plea 

agreement, and the other evidence presented by the government, provided sufficient evidence for 

the district court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence the amounts of loss and 

restitution. 

Jamison also contends that the district court denied him the opportunity to present 

exculpatory evidence through the testimony of Ryan Brown, a certified well driller who worked 

for Micah Group at some point. But the district court never prohibited Jamison from calling Brown 

or any other witnesses. At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asserted that 

the government had just produced an unsworn statement from Brown indicating that he had 

worked on approximately 50 sites and that “in the site[s] that he was on that the work was done 

properly.” (R. 52, Sentencing Tr., PageID 296.) Defense counsel asked “to include Mr. Brown’s 

relevant testimony as part of the record here because I think it’s instructional to the Court as to 

exculpation of Mr. Jamison and the Micah Group.” (Id. at PageID 297.) The district court did not 

prohibit defense counsel’s proffer. Regardless, Brown’s statement had little bearing on the district 

court’s calculation of the loss and restitution amounts because he was not listed as the certified 

well driller for any of the sites included in the district court’s calculation. 

Jamison asserts that he was wrongly held accountable for the actions of Mark Stafford, a 

certified well driller for Micah Group who signed forms affirming that he had supervised work 
No. 20-6153, United States v. Jamison

- 7 -

when he had not. According to Jamison, Stafford was the person to be held liable for any well 

abandonment issues pursuant to 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 6:350. But Jamison 

pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit mail fraud, admitting that he, Stafford, and others submitted 

or caused to be submitted Micah Group’s paperwork, including abandonment reports, plugging 

records, and reimbursement claims to the USTB, that falsely stated that Micah Group had properly 

abandoned the groundwater monitoring wells and that the work had been done under Stafford’s 

supervision. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act “specifically empowers district courts to 

make individual defendants liable for all of the losses caused by multi-defendant crimes, and we 

have consistently affirmed such decisions in the conspiracy context.” Sawyer, 825 F.3d at 295. 

Jamison has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion or otherwise 

erred in calculating the loss and restitution amounts. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s 

judgment.