## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 32 56

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. Ro be rt M ie ll
, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 11 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 25 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ro be rt Mi el l ap p eal s hi s se nt en ce on m ai l frau d ch arg es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1. Mi el l clai m s th at th e di st ric t cou rt erre d when ap pl y in g sen te nc in g 1

g u i d e l i n e s en ha nc em en ts fo r (1 ) ab us e of po si ti on of pr iv at e tru st , (2 ) 25 0 or m or e vi ct im s, an d (3 ) lo ss ex ceed in g $1 m il li on

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err b y ap pl y in g t he se en ha nc em en ts , we affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Mar k W

. Ben ne tt , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.I.

Mi el l, a la nd lo rd an d own er of hu nd red s of ren ta l pr op ert ie s, pl ead ed gu il ty to

en ga gi ng in two m ai l frau d sc he m es

. The fir st ta rg et ed hi s in su ran ce co m pa ny (th e 2
in su ran ce frau d sc h e me)

. The se co nd ta rg et ed hi s te na nt s by syste m at ic al ly an d frau du le nt ly retai ni ng th ei r da m ag e d ep os it s— aft er in fla ti ng th e co st s o f rep ai rs on
te na nt s’ “ Su m

m ary of Mo ve -Ou t Work ” fo rm s— an d d em an di ng ad di ti on al al le ge d

rep ai r co st s fr om

ten an ts (th e d am ag e d ep os it sch em e).

At sen te nc in g, th e di st ric t cou rt c on cl ud ed th at Mi el l’s t ot al off en se lev el fo r th e da m ag e de po si t sc he m e was 35
, wit h a Cri m in al His to r y Cat eg or y of I, fo r a Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.) ran ge of 1 6 8 t o 2 1 0

m on th s’ i m

pr is on m en t. In cal cu la ti ng th e of fen s e le ve l, 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 ab us e of po si ti on of pr iv at e tru st , a si x- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e o ffen se in vo lv in g 2 50 or m or e v ic ti m s, an d a si xt een -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e vi ct im s’ lo ss es e x c e e d in g $1 m il li on

. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward to 24 0

m on th s, the st at ut or y m ax im um fo r th e m ai l frau d offe ns es , ba se d on th e fact or s set fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). 3

Mi el l pl ead ed gu il ty to ei gh te en co un ts of m ai l frau d un de r 18 U.S.C. § 13 41
, 2

on e c o u n t of pe rjury un de r 18 U.S.C. § 16 21
, an d on e co un t of fal se de cl arat io n be fo re a co ur t un de r 18 U.S.C. § 16 23

. He was fo un d gu il ty at tri al of two co un ts of fil in g a fal se tax ret ur n u nd er 2 6 U.S.C. § 72 06 (1 ).

Co un ts 7 th ro ug h 18 of th e Thi rd Su pe rs ed in g In di ct m en t, ari si ng fro m th e 3 da m ag e de po si t sc he m e, were g r o u p e d to ge th er. The di st ric t co ur t al so se nt en ced Mi el l to 24 0 m on th s fo r th e co un ts ari si ng fro m th e in su ran ce frau d sc he m e (Co un ts 1 th ro ug h 6)
, 60 m on th s fo r th e pe rjury an d fal se de cl arat io n ch arg es (Co un ts 19 an d 20 ), an d 36 m on th s fo r th e fal se ta x ret ur n ch arg es (Co un ts 22 an d 23 ), al l to be

se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y , alo ng wit h o th er t erm s an d c on di ti on s.

-2

-II.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng
gu id el in es de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Fi or it o, 64 0 F.3 d 33 8, 35 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W e

rev ie w f o r c l e a r erro r th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact reg ard in g th e ab us e of

po si ti on of tru st , nu m

be r of vi ct im s, an d am ou nt of lo ss se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts

. See Uni te d St at es v. Fazi o, 48 7 F.3 d 64 6, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ab us e of po si ti on of

tru st ); Uni te d St at es v. Icaz a, 49 2 F.3 d 96 7, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (n um be r of vi ct im s) ; Uni te d S ta te s v . McKan ry , 62 8 F .3d 10 10 , 10 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (am ou nt of l os s)

.

A.

Und er U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3
, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e two el em en ts by a
pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce in or de r fo r th e ab us e of tru st en ha nc em en t to ap pl y : (1 ) de fen da nt oc cu pi ed a po si ti on of pr iv at e tru st , an d (2 ) de fen da nt us ed th is po si ti on in a m an ne r th at si gn ifi can tl y faci li ta te d th e co m m is si on or co nc eal m en t of th e of fen se

. U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Ols on , 22 F.3 d 78 3, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Brel sf or d, 98 2 F.2d 26 9, 27 1 (8t h Cir. 19 92 )). The

ap pl ic at io n of U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3 “ is fact in te ns iv e be cau se it tu rn s on th e pr eci se rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e de fen da nt an d he r vi ct im s an d th eref or e can no t be de ci de d

on th e ba si s of ge ne ral it ie s.” Uni te d St at es v. Je nk in s , 57 8 F.3 d 74 5, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bak er, 2 00 F.3d 55 8, 5 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) ).

Mi el l co nt en ds th at th e la nd lo rd -te na nt rel at io ns hi p is no t a po si ti on of pr iv at e
tru st

. A po si ti on of pr i v a te tru st is “ ch arac te riz ed by pr of es si on al or m an ag eri al di sc ret io n ( i.e. , su bs ta nt ia l di sc ret io na ry jud gm en t th at i s or di na ril y gi ve n

co ns id erab le de fere nc e).” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3 , c m t. n.1 . Ex cep t fo r th e di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e, no co ur t has ru le d on whe th er a la nd lo rd is in a po si ti on of pr iv at e tru st
to te na nt s co nc ern in g da m ag e de po si ts un de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3

. W e ha ve , ho wev er,

-3

-fo un d si m il ar rel at io ns hi ps to co ns ti tu te po si ti on s of pr iv at e tru st

. See, e. g

. , F a z i o,

48 7 F.3 d at 65 9 (rea lt or -cl ie nt ); Uni te d St at es v. And ers on , 34 9 F.3 d 56 8, 57 3- 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) ( i n v e s tm en t ad vi so r-cl ie nt ); Bak er, 20 0 F.3 d at 56 4 (li cen se d in su ran ce
ag en t-c li en t); see als o Gu arra ci no v. Ho ffm an , 24 6 B .R. 13 0, 1 34 (Ban kr

. D. Mas s. 20 00 ) (n ot in g th at a tru st rel at io ns hi p ex is ts be twee n la nd lo rd an d te na nt wit h res pe ct
to se cu r i t y d e po si ts ); Bri xi us v. Ch ris ti an (In re Ch ris ti an ), 17 2 B.R. 49 0, 49 7- 98 (Ban kr . D. Mas s. 19 94 ) (rec og ni zi ng fid uc ia ry rel at io ns hi p be twee n a la nd lo rd an d

te na nt wit h re sp ect to sec ur it y de po si ts ).

W e co nc lu de th at , in li gh t of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in
fin di ng th at Mi el l oc cu pi ed a po si ti on of tru s t v i s

- a-v is hi s te na nt s reg ard in g th ei r da m ag e de po si ts

. Mi el l was req ui red by Io wa la w to ho ld hi s te na nt s’ de po si ts in a 4
fed eral ly in su red ba nk acco un t or tru st acco un t se pa rat e fro m hi s pe rs on al fu nd s an d

to ret ur n each ren ta l de po si t m in us le gi ti m at e co st s wit hi n th irt y d a y s aft er
te rmi n a t i on of each te na nc y

. Io wa Co de § 56 2A.1 2. He ret ai ne d su bs ta nt ia l di sc ret io na ry jud gm en t wh i l e o c cu pyin g th e hi gh es t m an ag em en t po si ti on in hi s

co m pa ni es , a po si ti on th at affo rd ed hi m th e op po rtu ni ty to acce ss te na nt s’ ap art m en ts

an d m on ey , ex erci se co nt ro l ov er da m a ge de po si ts an d do cu m en ta ti on reg ard in g al le ge d da m ag es , an d ch oo se th e m ean s of rep ai rs

. The te na nt s were i nc ap ab le of

m on it or in g Mi el l in th es e un de rta ki ng s, an d tra di ti on al pa th s of le ga l reco ur se were

r el at iv el y fru it le ss co ns id eri ng th e co st s of li ti ga ti on

. Mo reo ve r, th e de po si ts were

a pr ereq ui si te to ho us in g fo r th e te na nt s, who of te n were eco no mi cal ly vu ln erab le
,
un so ph is ti cat ed , and th us —u nl ik e la rg e co m m erci al ten an ts —u na bl e to ne go ti at e a

It ap pe ars th at th e di st ric t c ou rt wou ld ha ve im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce 4 wit ho ut th e a bu se of tru st en ha nc em en t, as th e co ur t fo un d th at th e two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t “ do es no t ev en be gi n to co rrel at e to th e n at ur e an d e xt en t o f th e h arm th at Mi el l’s sc he m e in fli ct ed on pe op le th at he ex pe ct ed wou ld be to o eco no m ic al ly

vu ln erab le or un so ph is ti cat ed to do an y th in g ab ou t it .” D. Ct

. Ord er of Sep

. 27
, 20 10
, at 92

.
-4

-be tt er de al

. See In re Ch ris ti an , 17 2 B.R. at 49 8 (rec og ni zi ng th at la nd lo rd -res id en ti al

te na nt rel at io ns hi p o nl y

sel do m ly is “ a rel at io n a t ar m ’s len gt h b et ween eq ua ls ”).

Mi el l al so us ed hi s es se nt ia ll y un rev ie wab le po si ti on of au th or it y to faci li ta te

an d co nc eal hi s frau d, as hi s po ss es si on of th e de po si ts pu t hi m in a po si ti on of po wer rel at i v e t o t e na nt s. His po ss es si on of te na nt s’ ren ta l un it s fo ll owi ng te na nt s’ de pa rtu res , a l o n g w i t h co nt ro l of pa pe rwo rk it em iz in g th e co st s of rep ai rs , e na bl ed
hi m to co m

mi t a n d co nc eal th e frau d by in fla ti ng rep ai r co st s an d do ct or in g or de st ro y in g th e ap pl ic ab le reco rd s. Bec au se te na nt s di d no t rep ai r th e ren ta l un it s, th ey la ck ed fir st -h an d kn owl ed ge ab ou t th e act ua l co st s of su ch rep ai rs an d ha d to rel y to

a n e xt en t on Mi el l’s rep res en ta ti on s reg ard in g rep ai rs an d co st s. Th o s e
rep res en ta ti on s or di na ril y are gi ve n co ns id erab le de fere nc e: Mi el l, th e fo ur th -la rg es t
pr op ert y own er in Lin n Co un ty, Io wa, co nt r o l l e d t he pr op ert y an d reco rd s, an d th e
te na nt s— m an y of who m , as no te d ab ov e, were un so ph is ti cat ed an d eco no m ic al ly di sa dv an ta ge d— face d si gn ifi can t co st s an d ba rri ers to c ha ll en gi ng Mi el l’s

rep res en ta ti on s co nc ern in g t he da m ag e d ep os it s.

Mi el l fu rth er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fin di ng th at he he ld a
po si ti on of tru st be cau se hi s te na nt s di d no t in fact t r u s t hi m

. W he th er a de fen da nt ho ld s a po si ti on of tru st wit h res pe ct to a vi ct im
, ho wev er, tu rn s on th e na tu re of th e de fen da nt ’s po si ti on an d am ou nt of di sc ret io n an d co nt ro l rel at iv e to th e vi ct im
, no t whe th er th e vi ct im su bjec ti ve ly tru st ed th e de fen da nt

. See Uni te d St at es v. San to ro , 30 2 F.3 d 76
, 81 -8 2 (2 d Ci r. 20 02 ) (rejec ti ng arg um en t th at de fen da nt co ul d no t ha ve ab us ed po si ti on of t ru st be cau se cli en ts di d no t tru st hi m ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v

. Bai le y , 22 7 F.3 d 79 2, 80 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (n ot in g th at U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3 en ha nc em en t do es no t req ui re vi ct im ’s su bjec ti ve be li ef th at de fen da nt oc cu pi es po si ti on of tru st ).

-5

-B.

Mi el l ap pe al s th e ap pl ic at io n of a si x- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(2 )(C) fo r a cri m e affe ct in g 25 0 or m or e vi ct im s. He c o n c e d e s t ha t 14 0

te na nt s wer e v ic ti m s b ut di sp ut es th e ex is te nc e o f an y ad di ti on al vi ct im s.

“ If a de fen da nt ob

jects to fact ua l st at em en ts in a PSR, th en th e se nt en ci ng co ur t

m ay no t re ly on t ho se fact s u nl es s t he go ve rn m en t p ro ve s th em by a prep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d S t a t e s v. Rep lo gl e, 62 8 F.3 d 10 26
, 10 29 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Po or Bea r, 35 9 F.3 d 10 38
, 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). The Fi na l
Am e n d e d Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (PSR ) li st ed 27 2 in di vi du al s who were id en ti fie d, or cam e fo rward fo ll owi ng a ne wsp ap er no ti ce, as vi ct im s of th e da m ag e de po si t frau d sc he m e an d who su bm it te d vi ct im im pa ct st at em en ts rep or ti ng a
sp e c i f i c l o s s

. Mi el l ob

jecte d to th e co un t be in g m or e th an 25 0, arg ui ng th at a

m ajor it y of th e 27 2 cl ai m in g a lo ss “ pr ov id e[d ] no do cu m en ta ti o n or su pp or ti ng

reas on fo r th ei r al le ge d lo ss su st ai ne d

. . .” Object io ns of Def. to PSR at ¶ 99

. Mi el l di d no t ob ject, ho wev er, wit h res pe ct to an y pa rti cu la r vi ct im ’s rep or te d lo ss

. Nor di d he ob ject to th e fact ua l se ct io n of th e PSR de ta il in g th e sys t e mat i c na tu re of hi s da m ag e d ep os it frau d s ch em e.

Mi el l’s ad m is s i o n s c on cern in g th e syste m at ic na tu re of hi s frau d sc he m e,
to ge th er wit h th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng s, co ns ti tu te d ev id en ce

su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e ab ov e-m en ti on ed
27 2 in di vi du al s were vi ct im s. Mi el l’s fai lu re to ch al le ng e th e ch arac te riz at io n of an y
sp eci fic te na nt id en ti fie d as a vi ct im ne ga te s hi s ch al le ng e co nc ern in g th e nu m be r of vi ct im s. See Uni te d St at es v. Hatc he tt , 6 22 F.3 d 9 8 4, 98 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t was no t req ui red to pr es en t di rect ev id en ce ab ou t ci rcu m st an ces of each al le ge d vi ct im to es ta bl is h nu m be r of vi ct im s in th e ab se nc e of a ch al le ng e
to th e ch arac te riz at io n of an y sp eci fic in ve st or as a vi ct im ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

-6

-Hart st ei n, 50 0 F.3 d 79 0, 79 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ The go ve rn m en t ne ed no t pr es en t

ev id en ce as to each a l le ge d vi ct im
, as [d efen da nt ] ch al le ng es ne it he r th e ch arac te riz at io n of m an y

of h er l en de rs as v ic ti m s n or th e lo an am ou nt s cl ai m ed by th e g ov ern m en t as to m an y of t he se vi ct im s” ).

Add it io na ll y , th e d i s tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e go ve rn m en t pr ov ed by a
pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e nu m be r of vi ct im s was “ so m et hi ng ov er 30 0

an d pe rh ap s m or e th an 1,0 00 ,” D

. C t

. O r d e r of Sep

. 27
, 20 10
, at 91
, ba se d on th e syste m at ic na tu re of Mi el l’s frau d, du rin g whi ch Mi el l reg u l arl y in fla te d co st s of

rep ai rs in da m ag e de po si t de du c t io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t cred it ed as “ a reas on ab le

es ti m at e” th e rep or t an d te st im on y of fo ren si c acco un ta nt Kerry Bo lt
, who cal cu la te d th at Mi el l ret ur ne d so m e po rti on of a d e p o s i t o n l y 26 % of th e ti m e an d th at Mi el l fai le d t o re tu rn an y

po rti on of a de po si t to 2,0 30 te na nt s du rin g th e of fen se co nd uc t
pe rio d. D. C t. Ord er of

Sep . 27 , 20 10 , at 6 3. Sp ol ia ti on of e vi de nc e an d o th erwi se
po or reco rd

- k e e p i n g pr ev en te d a co m pl et e an al y si s of te na nt fil es an d pr eci se de te rm in at io n of th e nu m be r of vi ct im s. In de sc rib in g th e in te nd ed sc op e of Mi el l’s 5
frau d, t h e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at it was “ pe rs ua de d th at th e pr os ecu ti on is co rrec t th at Mi el l in te nd ed to ho ld as m uc h of each da m ag e de po si t as h e po ss ib ly co ul d,

ev id en t fro m th e co m

m in gl in g of de po si ts wit h ge ne ral in co m e of Mi el l’s b u s i n e s s

an d th e syste m at ic at te m

pt s th at Mi el l m ad e to in fla te cl ai m s ag ai ns t da m ag e de po si ts

. . . .” Id

. at 64

. Alt ho ug h ad di ti on al ev id en ce m ig ht ha ve al lo wed fo r a m or e pr eci se

co un t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it cl ear erro r in co nc lu di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d pr ov ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en c e th at 25 0 or m or e pe op le were de frau de d b y

Mi el l’s d am ag e d ep os it sch em e.

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at sp ol ia t i o n of ev id en ce cal ls fo r an ad ve rs e 5 in fere nc e ag ai ns t Mi el l co nc ern in g th e nu m be r of vi ct im s. Alt ho ug h su ch a ru le ha s be en ap pl ie d in ci vi l cas es , se e Jo hn so n v. Rea dy Mi xe d Co nc ret e Co
., 42 4 F.3 d 80 6, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), it ha s no t be en ap pl ie d in an Eig ht h Ci rcu it cri m in al cas e. In li gh t of th e su ffi ci en cy of th e av ai la bl e ev id en ce th at Mi el l vi ct i mi z ed 25 0 or m or e pe op le , we nee d n ot tak e a p os it io n o n t hi s co nt en ti on

.
-7

-C.

Mi el l ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a s i xt een -le ve l en ha nc em en t

un de r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(I) fo r th e lo ss cau se d by th e da m ag e de po si t sc he m e

ex ceed in g $1 m il li on

. Los s un de r th e Gui de li ne s “ is th e gr eat er of act ua l lo ss or in te nd ed lo ss .” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1
, cm t. n.3 (A). Bec au se of th e im pr act ic ab il it y of

rev ie win g m or e th a n 2
, 00 0 te na nt fil es , pa rti cu la rly co ns id eri ng th e de st ru ct io n of

pe rti ne nt reco rd s, t he di st ric t co ur t d et erm in ed in te nd ed lo ss

.

“ The go ve r n men t m

us t pr ov e th e in te nd ed lo ss by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Hol th au s, 48 6 F.3 d 45 1, 45 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Un i t e d S t a t es v. St ap le s, 41 0 F.3 d 48 4, 49 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ The di st ric t co ur t’s

m et ho d fo r cal cu la ti ng th e am ou nt of lo ss m us t be reaso na bl e, bu t th e lo ss ne ed no t be de te rm in ed wit h pr eci si on .” Uni te d St at es v. Hod ge , 58 8 F.3 d 97 0, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. McI n t o s h
, 49 2 F.3 d 95 6, 96 0- 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )).

“ [W] e acco rd pa rti cu la r de fere nc e to th e lo ss de te rm in at io n be c a u se of th e di st ric t

co ur t’s un iq ue ab il it y to as se ss th e ev id en ce an d es ti m at e th e lo ss .” Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt , 44 8 F .3d 10 40 , 10 44 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)

.

In de te rm in in g i nt en de d l os s, co ur ts ex am in e a de fen da nt ’s su bjec ti ve in te nt

. Hart s t e i n , 50 0 F.3 d at 79 8 (co nc lu di ng th at th e “ de fen da nt ’s act ua l,

su bjec ti ve in te nt

. . . sh ou ld dr iv e ou r an al y si s” ). The go ve rn m en t c h a r a c t e riz es Mi el l’s su bjec ti ve in te nt br oa dl y an d co nt en ds th at he in te nd ed to ke ep ev ery da m ag e de po si t al l of th e ti m e. Evi de nc e su pp or ti ng th is vi ew in cl ud es Mi el l’s di ve rs io n of da m ag e de po si ts in to hi s ge ne ral rev en ue acco un t rat he r th an se gr eg at in g th e de po si ts in to a se pa rat e ba nk or tru st acco un t as req ui red by Io wa la w, an d hi s sc he me to frau du le nt ly al te r te na nt s’ m ov e-o ut fo rm s as a m at te r of co ur se to in fla te th e al le ge d da m ag es cau se d b y

th e te na nt s.

-8

-The di st ric t co ur t b a s ed it s cal cu la ti on of lo ss ex ceed in g $1 m il li on on th e

go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce of th e ap pr ox im at e nu m be r of Mi el l’s ren ta l un it s m ul ti pl ie d by t h e av erag e da m ag e de po si t am ou nt pe r un it
, whi ch res ul te d in a to ta l of $1 ,44 8,5 30 .88

. See U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1
, cm t. n.3 (C) (n ot in g th at th e lo ss es ti m at e m ay be ba se d on “ [t]he ap pr ox im at e nu m be r of vi ct im s m

ul ti pl ie d by th e av erag e lo ss to each vi ct im ”). The go ve rn m en t th en su bt ract ed $2 35 ,07 5.7 3 fro m th is to ta l ba se d on

ev id en ce th at Mi el l ret ur ne d so m e po rti on of da m ag e d ep os it s 26 % o f th e ti m e an d th at th e av erag e am ou nt ret ur ne d on th os e oc cas io ns was $3 29 .51
, res ul ti ng in a to ta l
in te nd ed lo ss of $1 ,21 2,8 91 .56

. The d i s t r i ct co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on pr op erl y 6
i n c lu de d th es e su m s be cau se th ey flo wed fro m th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce th a t Mi el l’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t da m ag e de po si ts were “ syste m at ic al ly t a i n t e d wit h frau d,” le ad in g th e di st ric t co ur t to co nc lu de th at it was “ di ffi cu lt
, if no t im po ss ib le
, to gi ve hi m an y cred it fo r pa rts of hi s cl ai m s th at m ig ht ha ve be en le gi ti m at e, if he ha d tri ed

to as se rt th os e cl ai m s by le gi ti m at e m ean s.” D

. C t

. Ord er of Sep

. 27
, 20 10
, at 64

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e a reas on ab le es ti m at e of lo ss , on e th at is pl au si bl e in
li gh t o f th e rec or d a s a wh ol e, it s l os s d et erm in at io n was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s.

III.

The sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

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

The di st ric t co ur t no te d t h a t t he go ve rn m en t’s es ti m at e was “ co ns erv at iv e, 6
pa rti cu la rly in li gh t of th e hi gh er e s t im at es res ul ti ng fro m m or e co m pl et e fil es ”

su bs eq ue nt ly o bt ai ne d. D. C t. Ord er of Sep . 2 7, 20 10 , a t 6 4. Th e g ov ern m en t al so
su bm it te d an al te rn at iv e cal cu la ti on m et ho do lo gy th at in cl ud ed th e ad di ti on al su m s ab ov e th e da m ag e de po si ts th at Mi el l in te nd ed to se ek fro m te na nt s. Thi s ap pr oa ch

res ul te d i n a n i nt en de d l os s ca lc ul at io n o f $3 ,67 6,4 70

. -9

-