UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4741

SAMUEL C. LITTEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CR-97-409-PJM)

Submitted: September 30, 1999

Decided: November 18, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Michael T. CitaraManis,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Steven M. Dettelbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Jan Paul Miller, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Litten was convicted of one count of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1344 (1994), six counts of bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 152

(1994), and one count of criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401 (1994),

and sentenced to thirty-seven months imprisonment, followed by

three years of supervised release, and restitution of $129,800. Litten

appeals from two of the bankruptcy fraud counts and the criminal

contempt conviction and raises two claims regarding the calculation

of his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Litten was a successful real estate developer in Southern Maryland.

In 1991, he became involved in a dispute with First National Bank of

Maryland over a $1.2 million loan. On July 12, 1993, the day before

First National's suit against him was to go to trial, Litten filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, personally

and on behalf of his wholly-owned corporation, Litten Builders, Inc.

Litten operated Litten Builders, Inc. as a debtor in possession until

May 1994, when Waring Justis was appointed by the bankruptcy

court as co-manager of the bankruptcy estates.* The order appointing

Justis provided that all business decisions had to be agreed to by both

Litten and Justis. A trustee was appointed in July 1994. The reorganization plan, which was confirmed in July 1995, called for liquidation

of most of Litten's real estate assets.

The Government produced evidence of numerous acts of bankruptcy fraud committed by Litten over an extended period; however,

Litten challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only with respect to

Counts Two and Seven. In Count Two, Litten was charged with

_________________________________________________________________

*Upon filing a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a

debtor obtains the title of "debtor-in-possession." 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1)

(1994).

 2
defrauding the bankruptcy estate by selling property to his daughter

at below market price. Specifically, the property--located at 721

Mills Way, Annapolis, Maryland--was owned by Keyser Homes,

another of Litten's wholly-owned corporations. Keyser sold the property, valued at $212,500, to Litten and his daughter on August 20,

1993, for $170,000. Litten did not notify the bankruptcy court or any

of his creditors of the sale.

Count Seven arose out of the sale of another property located at

10309 Lord Nelson Street in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Although

Litten entered into the sales contract while he was debtor in possession, the closing took place one day after Justis was appointed comanager of the estate. Litten never notified Justis of the sale nor did

he obtain bankruptcy court approval.

Finally, Count Nine arose out of Litten's conduct during the trustee's attempt to sell another of the estate's assets, Massum Eyrie, a

220-acre farm and historic house located on the Chesapeake Bay in

St. Mary's County, Maryland. The order confirming the plan of reorganization required Litten to cooperate with the liquidating trustee in

the sale of the property. Later orders issued by the bankruptcy court

also required Litten to cooperate in the showing of the property and

prohibited him from interfering with the liquidating trustee's attempts

to sell any assets. Nevertheless, at the auction on November 13, 1996,

Litten blockaded the entrance road to the property and handed out flyers stating that the auction was illegal and asking potential buyers not

to bid on the property.

Litten was convicted by a jury of seven of the eight counts in the

indictment. He noted a timely appeal.

Litten first claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish

bankruptcy fraud in Count Two because the property at issue did not

belong to the estate but to Keyser Homes, Inc. However, the Bankruptcy Code clearly provides that the bankruptcy estate is comprised

of "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the

commencement of the case." 11 U.S.C. § 541 (1994). Litten owned

100% of the stock in Keyser Homes, Inc., which, in turn, owned 721

Mills Way. Accordingly, the property became property of the estate

 3
by virtue of Litten's ownership of Keyser Homes, Inc., and, therefore,

the evidence was sufficient to convict him on Count Two.

Second, Litten challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with

respect to Count Seven because the sales contract for 10309 Lord

Nelson Street was entered into during the ordinary course of business

while he was debtor in possession. However, the evidence clearly

established that the closing took place after the bankruptcy court

appointed Justis as co-manager of the estate and that the sale violated

the terms of that order.

Next, Litten claims that Count Nine was constructively amended at

trial. However, we find that Count Nine was not constructively

amended, nor did a variance occur that prejudiced Litten. See United

States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 53 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that variance violates defendant's rights only if he can prove he was prejudiced by variance); United States v. Floresca , 38 F.3d 706, 710 (4th

Cir. 1994) (en banc) (holding that for constructive amendment to have

occurred, the court's jury instruction must have exposed defendant to

criminal "charges that are not made in the indictment itself").

Litten next challenges the two-level adjustment in his sentence for

abuse of a position of trust. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 3B1.3 (1997). The district court's decision to apply the adjustment

is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Helton, 953 F.2d 867,

869 (4th Cir. 1992). As debtor in possession, Litten held a position

of trust. See United States v. Levy, 992 F.2d 1081, 1084 (10th Cir.

1993) (applying adjustment to debtor in possession in bankruptcy

fraud proceeding). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err

in applying the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust.

In his reply brief, Litten additionally contends that the adjustment was

improper because it was already taken into account in his base offense

level and therefore constituted double-counting. This court ordinarily

will not address new arguments raised for the first time in the reply

brief. See Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1338 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion to strike this portion of Litten's reply brief.

Finally, Litten contends that the district court erred in calculating

the amount of loss to be attributed to him with respect to the sale of

 4
721 Mills Way under USSG § 2F1.1(b)(1). The government need

only establish the amount of financial loss by a preponderance of evidence. See United States v. Harris, 882 F.2d 902, 907 (4th Cir. 1989).

The amount of loss under § 2F1.1 need not be determined with precision; rather, the district court need only make a reasonable estimate

given the available information. See USSG§ 2F1.1, comment (n.8).

The district court's finding in this regard is reviewed for clear error.

See United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1274 (4th Cir. 1995). The

property at issue was valued at $212,500. The district court determined that, because the property was subject to a mortgage of

$170,000, the actual loss suffered by the estate was $42,500 (i.e., the

value of the property less the mortgage amount). We find that the district court's calculation--based on testimony and documentary evidence establishing the value of the property--was a reasonable

estimate of the loss given the available information. Therefore, the

court did not clearly err in determining the amount of loss with

respect to the sale of 721 Mills Way.

We therefore affirm Litten's convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 5