UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VICTOR LOPEZ ESCAMILLA, a/k/a Mango Chupado, a/k/a Ventura,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00303-WDQ-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

A. D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Tamera L. Fine, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Victor Lopez Escamilla was sentenced to ninety-seven 

months’ imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury of one 

count of fraud in connection with identification documents, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(2), (c)(1) (2006), one count of 

social security number fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 408(a)(7)(C) (2006), and one count of fraud and misuse of 

immigration documents and aiding and abetting, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1546, 2 (2006). He now appeals, challenging his 

sentence, contending that the district court erred in computing 

his total offense level under the sentencing guidelines. 

Finding no error, we affirm.

In determining whether the district court has properly 

applied the Guidelines, this Court reviews its interpretation of 

the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. 

United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, the meaning of “loss” under the Guidelines is 

reviewed de novo, while the amount of loss is reviewed for clear 

error. See United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889, 900 (4th Cir. 

1998).

Escamilla first challenges the district court’s 

application of a ten-level adjustment for loss. U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 2B1.1(b)(1) (2011) provides for a 

ten-level increase where the loss from the offense was between 
3

$120,000 and $200,000. Loss can be measured by actual or 

intended loss, or in limited circumstances, by gain. USSG §

2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A), (B). Application Note 3(B) of § 2B1.1 

provides: “The court shall use the gain that resulted from the 

offense as an alternative measure of loss only if there is a 

loss but it reasonably cannot be determined.” Application Note 

3(C) of § 2B1.1 provides that the court need only make a 

reasonable estimate of the loss, based on the available 

information. It notes: “The sentencing judge is in a unique 

position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss based upon 

that evidence. For this reason, the court’s loss determination 

is entitled to appropriate deference.” USSG § 2B1.1 cmt.

n.3(C). 

Escamilla contends that because the Government offered 

no proof of actual economic loss, there is no loss, and 

therefore that gain cannot properly be used as an alternative 

measure. We reject this contention. Immigration document fraud 

causes actual economic loss, to the persons whose information is 

used on the documents, to employers who mistakenly rely on the 

counterfeit documents, and to the United States in protecting 

its borders and citizens. While these losses may be difficult 

to measure, that they do not exist simply does not follow. 

Accordingly, the district court appropriately used gains as an 

alternative measure to loss.
4

We also find no clear error with the district court’s 

loss calculation. The district court reasonably estimated the 

amount of loss, based on the available information. 

Accordingly, the district court properly applied the ten-level 

loss adjustment.

Escamilla next challenges the district court’s 

application of a six-level adjustment for an offense involving 

250 or more victims. USSG § 2B1.1(b)(2) provides: “If the 

offense . . . involved 250 or more victims, increase by 6 

levels.” Application Note 1 of § 2B1.1 provides that a “victim” 

means any person who has suffered actual loss or sustained 

bodily injury as a result of the offense. However, Application 

Note 4(E) of § 2B1.1 provides that, in cases involving means of 

identification, “victim” can also mean “any individual whose 

means of identification was used unlawfully or without 

authority.” 

Escamilla contends first that there were no victims to 

his offenses, and alternatively, that the district court relied 

on an improper methodology in determining the number of victims. 

First, Escamilla contends that, even though the fraudulent 

identification documents he manufactured and sold used real 

information from various individuals without their permission, 

none of those individuals are victims because they did not 
5

suffer actual economic loss. In light of Application Note 4(E), 

this contention fails. 

Escamilla also challenges the district court’s 

methodology for determining the number of victims. We find no 

clear error in the district court’s calculation of over 250 

victims. The district court reasonably relied on the available 

evidence to make this factual determination. The district court 

therefore properly applied the six-level, victim-number 

adjustment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED