NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 1313

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AC K J AR VI S BR YAN,

A ppel l ant

______________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 08- cr - 00031) D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

___________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

N ovember10, 2009

___________ B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay7, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: Ja c k Ja rv is B ry a n a p p e a ls th e 6 0 -m o n th se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt-2-

aft erhe pl ed gui l tyt o cons pi r acyt o defr aud a f i nanci al i ns t i tut i on. W e fi nd no err orand wi l l a f f i r m. I. I n M ay2007, J ack Bry an and a notherm an, J as on M aj es ki , ent er ed a PN C B ank br anch i n R obi ns on T ow ns hi p, Penns y l vani a, s eeki ng a l oan i n the amountof $234 m i l l i on. B ry an and M aj es ki r epr es ent ed t o bank off i ci al s thattheyi nt ended t o us e the l oan pr ocee ds t o pur chas e bus i nes s es and deve l op r eal es t at e pr opertythatB ry an ow ned in N e w M e x ico . O v e r th e n e x t se v e ra l m o n th s, B ry a n a n d M a jes k i m e t se v e ra l ti m e s w ith a managerof PN C ’ s Pr i vat e C l i entG r oup t o di s cus s the l oan appl i cat i on. I n connec t i on w i th t he appl i cat i on, B ry an s ubm i t t ed fi nanci al s t at ement s and document s thatcont ai ned numer ous m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons . I n part i cul ar , B ry an r epr es ent ed t o PN C thathe ea r ned a s al aryof $120, 000 and comm i s s i ons of $50, 000; t hat he had a ccount s r ece i vabl e w or th $253, 000; thathe ow ned $234 mi l l i on of s ecur i t i es t hat w er e ava i l abl e as col l at er al ; thathe ow ned r eal es t at e w or th $164 m i l l i on; and thathe w as a gr aduat e of the U ni ver s i tyof Sout hern C al i forni a Law School and a mem berof the C al i forni a B arA s s oci at i on. A l l of thati nform at i on w as fal s e. A s s etval ues on fi nanci al s chedul es s ubm i t t ed t o PN C w er e fa br i cat ed, as w er e the fe der al t ax r eturns pr ovi ded by B ry an. A l though B r y an does ow n uni m pr oved pr opertyi n N ew M exi co, i t s val ue i s i n t he n e ig h b o rh o o d o f

s e v e ra l th o u s a n d d o lla rs , a n d th e p ro p e rt yis e n c u m b e re d b yta x lie n s .-3-

B ry an i s nota l aw s chool gr aduat e, and i s nota mem berof the C al i forni a B ar A s s oci at i on. T he mi s r epr es ent at i ons w er e di s cover ed, and PN C neverext ended the l oan. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 8 , B ry a n a n d M a jes k i w e re in d icte d a n d c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp irin g to d e f r a u d a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i tu t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 1 . Bry a n p l e d g u i l ty . At sen tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e f ind ing s o f th e p rese n tenc e inv esti g ati o n rep o rt ( PSR ) , w hi ch ca l cul at ed B r y an’ s offe ns e l evel as 31 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryas I V . T hi s w oul d have y i el ded an a dvi s oryG ui del i nes i m pr i s onm entr ange of 151- 188 m onths , butbeca us e the s t atut orym axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entfora vi ol at i on of 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 is 6 0 m o n th s, th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e a lso b e c a m e 6 0 m o n th s, p u rsu a n t to U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1 . 1 (a). T h e o f f e n s e l e v e l c o mp u t a t i o n s t a r t e d wi th a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

6 . S e e U. S . S . G. §§ 2X 1. 1 ( bas e off

ens e l evel forcons pi r acyi s the bas e off ens e l evel forthe s ubs t ant i ve offe ns e the def

endantcons pi r ed t o comm i t ) , 2B 1. 1( a) ( 2) ( pr ovi di ng bas e off ens e l evel of 6 fo r frau d an d related o ff en ses if, as h ere , the o ff en se o f c o n v ict ion h as a statu tory m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof l es s than 20 y ear s ) . Pur s uantt o § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( O ) , 28 l evel s w er e adde d beca us e the l os s w as det erm i ned t o exce ed $200 mi l l i on. Fi nal l y , t hr ee l evel s w er e s ubtr act ed foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i tyunder§ 3E 1. 1, r es ul t i ng i n an adj us t ed off

ens e l evel of 31.The sentence also included threeyear s of supervise d rele ase a nd a spec ial assessment of 1 $100. -4- T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence ( and G ui del i nes a d v iso ryse n ten c e ) o f

6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. B ry a n f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 1 II. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . O u r ju risd ictio n is confe rr ed by18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e g e n e ra lly re v ie w le g a l in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s d e n o v o . U nit ed S t at es v. G ri er, 58 5 F . 3d 13 8, 14 1 (3d C i r. 20 09 ). T he m eaning o f t he term “l oss” i s an i s s ue of G ui del i nes i nt erpr et at i on overw hi ch w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. N api er , 273 F. 3d 276, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . H ow ever , the am ountof loss attr i but abl e t o B r y an – l os s ei theractual l ys uffe r ed bythe vi ct i m , orm er el yi nt ended by B ry an – i s a fa ctual fi ndi ng thatw e r evi ew forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. D ul l um , 560 F . 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); U n it ed S tat es v . A li , 5 0 8 F . 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). III . B ry an pr es s es a s i ngl e cl ai m on appea l . H e ar gues thatbeca us e the fr aud w as d isco v ere d b ef

o re P N C d isbu rsed an ym o n ey , there w as n o “los s, ” a n d the D istri ct C o u rt erred in ad d ing 2 8 o ff

en se lev els p u rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 (b)(1 )(O ). T hi s ar gum enti gnor es the appl i cat i on not es t o § 2B 1. 1. A Sent enci ng G ui del i nes appl i cat i on not e “i s bi ndi ng unl es s i truns afoul of the C ons t i tut i on ora fe der al s t atut e, or is p lain lye rro n e o u s o r in c o n sis ten t w ith th e se c tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s it p u rp o rts toN one of the exc l us i ons i n s ubdi vi s i on ( D ) , pert ai ni ng t o i nt er es tand cos t s t o t he 2 governm entand/ orvi ct i m s , i s r el evanther e.-5- i nt erpr et . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B ooth, 432 F. 3d 542, 548 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H er e, appl i cat i on not e 3( A ) pr ovi des : “Subj ectt o the exc l us i ons i n s ubdi vi s i on ( D ) , l os s i s t he gr eat erof ac tual l os s ori nt ended l os s . ” See U ni t ed St at es v. N athan, 188 F. 3d 190, 208 2 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( “I n gener al , the l os s fr om fr aud i s the fi nanci al l os s actual l ys uffe r ed by th e v ic tim , orthe l os s thatthe cr i m i nali nt ended the vi ct i m t o s uf f eri f thatis gr eat er . ”) ( emphasi s added) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K opp, 951 F. 2d 521, 531 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( i nt erpr et i ng an ea r l i erver s i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ) . T he not e furtherpr ovi des : “‘ I nt ended loss’ (I) m ea n s the p ec u n iaryh arm that w as in tend ed to resu ltfro m the o ff en se; an d (II ) in c lu d e s in te n d e d p e c u n ia ry h a rm th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o s s ib le o r u n lik e ly to o c c u r . .

. . ” U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1 cmt . n. 3( A ) ( i i ) . I n det erm i ni ng the amountof l os s , the D i s tr i ct Co u r tc l e a r l ywa s n o tl i mi t e d t o th e a c tu a l l o s s s u f f e r e d b yP NC. B ry an’ s ar gum entm aybe al t ernat i vel ycons trued as cont endi ng thati ns uffi ci ent evi dence s uppor t ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatB ry an i nt ended t o caus e a l os s of $ 2 4 3 m il li o n , the f

u ll am o u n t of

the lo an s so u g h t. T h e u se o f th e $ 2 4 3 m il li o n fig u re a m o u n ts to a f

a c tu a l f in d in g b yth e D istric t C o u rt th a t B ry a n in ten d e d to a b sc o n d w ith a ll of the l oan pr ocee ds , w i thoutr epay i ng anypor t i on ther eof. T he r ecor d s how s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nots i m pl yas s um e thatthe $234 m ill io n f a c e v a lu e o f

th e lo a n f

ra u d u len tlyso u g h t w a s th e in ten d e d lo ss . B ry a n ra ise d th is-6-

issue in the D istri ct C o u rtin the fo rm o f a n o b jecti o n to the P S R b ef

o re se n tenc ing . In rul i ng on the obj ect i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zed a nd addr es s ed the pos s i bi l i tythat B ry an mi ghthave i nt ended t o r epaythe l oan, ors om e partof i t . T he courtfound:

T h e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd to in d ica te a n ysin c e re in ten tio n to r epaythe $234, 000, 000 l oan had i tbeen obt ai ned. I ndeed, al though D efe ndantm akes compl et el yunver i fi ed and uns ubs t ant i at ed cl ai m s of havi ng as s et s t ot al i ng $469. 1 m i l l i on, the onl yver i fi abl e as s et s pos s es s ed by De f e n d a n two u l d b e wo e f

u l l yi n a d e q u a t e t o r e p a ya l o a n o f th a ta mo u n t . At b e st, D e f e n d a n t h a s a f

e w h u n d re d th o u sa n d d o llars in a ss e ts. L ik e w ise , h is i ncome of $542 perm onth i n s oci al s ecur i tybenef i t s w oul d noti n anyw ay en ab le him to p ayb ac k h u n d red s o f m il li o n s o f d o ll ars. E v en if th e C o u rt acc ept ed D efe ndant ’ s cl ai m thathe w as earni ng an annua l s al aryof $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 a tth e t i me , a c l a i m h e h a s f a i l e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e , s u c h a n i n c o me s t i l l w oul d notcome cl os e t o al l ow i ng the r epaym entof $234, 000, 000. I n addi t i on t o havi ng abs ol ut el yno abi l i tyt o r epaya l oan the s i ze of the one he s ought , the fa ctthatD efe ndanthas admi t t ed t o s ubm i t t i ng f ra u d u len t d o c u m e n ts in a n a ttem p t to o b tain th e lo a n c o m p lete lyu n d e rc u ts an yclaim o f a sinc ere inten ti o n to rep aythe lo an . M o reo v er, D ef en d an t’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryof fr aud and f i nanci al dece pt i on demonstr at es a l ack of a s i ncer e i nt ent i on t o r epaythe l oan. H e has a pr i orconvi ct i on forfr audul ent l oan appl i cat i on and s erved a 10- y earfede r al s ent ence fora s epar at e fr aud offe ns e. H e has ot herconvi ct i ons demonstr at i ng fi nanci al di s hones tyfr om as r ece ntas 2006. T o cl ai m . . . thathe had a s i ncer e i nt entt o r epaythe l oan h e f ra u d u len tlyso u g h t w h e n h e h a d n o w h e re n e a r th e a ss e ts a n d in c o m e to d o so a n d a h isto ryo f

f ra u d a n d f

in a n c ial d e c e p tio n is c o m p lete lylac k in g in c r e d i b i l i ty. A ccor di ngl y , the C our tfi nds no m er i ti n D efe ndant ’ s obj ect i on. S. A . 11- 12 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . I ti s qui t e evi dentthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the i s s ue and f

ound thatB r y an i ndeed i nt ended t o caus e a l os s i n the ent i r e amountof the lo a n .-7-

T hi s fac tual det erm i nat i on w as notcl ear l yerr oneous , fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons gi ven bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . B r y an’ s as s et s w er e w oeful l yi nadequa t e t o r epaythe l oan, a n d B ry a n h a d a h isto ryo f c o m m itt in g f

in a n c ial c rim e s. T h is c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e is su f f icie n t to su p p o rt th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t B ry a n in ten d e d to p e rm a n e n tly depr i ve PN C of the $234 mi l l i on. T he courtw as thus corr ectt o appl ythe 28- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t co rre sp o n d in g to a lo ss o f th a t am o u n t. I V. Forthe r eas ons gi ven above , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof J anuary26, 2009.