FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 95 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 05 08 -VMC- EAJ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ERIC J . SCOTT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 1)

Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Eric J. Sco ttap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e aft er a ju ry fou ndhi m gu il ty of on e co un t o f co ns pi racy to d efraudth e Uni te d S ta te s an d t o c omm itwire frau d andba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 1; on e co un t o f wire frau d, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 43 an d 2 ; an d o ne co un t o f ba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 44 an d 2 . On ap pe al , Sco ttarg ue s t he di st ric t co urt erredwhen it (1 ) de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on s; an d (2 ) whe n i t ca lc ul at edth e fraudlo ss am ou ntatt rib ut ab le to hi m at s en te nc in g. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm Sco tt ’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. I. Sect io n 3 71 m ak es itil le ga l fo r two or m or e p ers on s t o “ co ns pi re ei th er t o co m m itan y off en se ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s, o r to de frau d t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 71 . To su st ai n aco nv ic ti on un de r § 3 71 , “ th e Gov ern m en t m us t p ro ve : (1 ) th atanag reem en t ex is te d b etween two or m or e p ers on s t o c omm ita cri m e; (2) th atth e d efen dantkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly j oi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) a co ns pi rat orpe rfo rm edanov ertactin furth eran ce o f th e ag reem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. N di ay e , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ The kn owl ed ge requi rem en t i s s at is fie d wh enth e Gov ern m en t s ho ws a d efen dant ’s aware ne ss of t he ess en ti al na tu re o f th e co ns pi racy.” Id. 2To es tabl is h t he off en se of wi re fraudun de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 3, the Gov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve “ (1 ) in te nt io na l p art ic ip at io n i n asch em e to de frau d a nd (2 ) us e o f th e in te rs ta te wire s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e sc he m e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Has so n , 33 3 F .3d12 64 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Sim il arl y , a co nv ic ti on forba nk frau d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 44 requi res pro of th at(1) th e d efen da ntin te nt io na ll y pa rti ci pa te d i n asch em e to de frau d a nd(2) th e in te nd edvi ct im was a fed eral ly-in su redfin an ci al in st itut io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. McC ar ri ck , 29 4 F .3d12 86 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To s us ta in a co nv ic ti on foraid in g a ndab et ti ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 , th e Gov ern m en t m us t s ho w th atth e d efen da nt“ as so ci at edhi m se lf wi th a cri m in al ve ntur e, pa rti ci pa te d i n i t as so m ethi ng he wis he d t o b rin g abo utan d so ug htby his act io ns to m ak e itsu ccee d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch wa rt z , 66 6 F .2d 46 1, 4 63 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ) (quo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d) . The e vi de nc e was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atSco tt was a kn owi ng pa rti ci pantin th e co ns pi racy becaus e h e (1 ) kn ew of th e n om in ee pu rch as es , (2) kn ew th atsu ch pu rch as es were m ad e to faci li ta te hi s wi fe, Gret ch en Sco tt ’s, app li cat io ns to rece iv e Sec ti on 8 b en efi ts un de r th e U.S. Depa rtment o f Hou si ng an d Urb anDeve lo pm en t’s (“ HUD”) Hou si ng Ch oi ce Vo uc he r Pro gr am , an d (3 ) pe rs on al ly part ic ip at edin th e sc he m e b y si gn in g o ve r a p ro pe rty to a no m in ee p ur ch as er, s ig ni ng in sp ect io n re po rts of t he pro pe rti es to faci li ta te th e 3Sect io n 8 ap pl ic at io ns , anden te rin g i nt o l eas es of p ro pe rti es he kn ew he di d n ot

own . Altho ug h S co ttarg ue s t ha t h e d idno t p ers on al ly part ic ip at e o r kn ow o f th e 1 frau du le ntmis rep res en ta ti on s m ad e to th e fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti on s b y th e n om in ee pu rch as ers , Sco tt ’s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy is s uf fic ie ntto su st ai n hi s co nv ic ti on s. Se e Pin ker to n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 32 8 U.S. 6 40 , 64 6- 47 , 66 S. Ct. 11 80 , 11 83 -8 4 (1 94 6) (a d efen dantwho kn owi ng ly part ic ip at es in a co ns pi racy is li ab le forth e act s o f hi s co -co ns pi rat or s d on e infurth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy, ev enif h e d idno t p ers on al ly part ic ip at e in th os e act s) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Valde s- Gue rr a , 75 8 F .2d14 11 , 14 15 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (a p ers on m ay be fou nd gu il ty of a co ns pi racy “ ev enth ou gh [he ] di d n otkn ow al l o f th e d et ai ls of t he ag reem en t . . . andev enif h e p lay edon ly a m in orrol e in th e sc he m e”). Fu rth er, ev enth ou gh Sco tton ly deal t wi th th e St . Pet erb ur g Ho us in g Aut ho rit y , th e ev id en ce s up po rts th atth e co ns pi racy actedto de frau d t he Uni te d St at es . “ A con sp ira cy

[to de frau d] m ay

be effe ct edwher e a d efen da ntus es a th ird pa rty to r each an d d efraudth e g ov ern m en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rma s , 97 4 F .2d 12 62 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). The ev id en ce s ho wedth e co ns pi rat or s kno win gl y us edth e St . Pet erb ur g Ho us in g Au th or it y to reac h andde frau d HUD. We review de novo the denial of a motion for judg ment of ac quittal, construing the 1 evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the verdic t. United States v. Thompson , 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006). 4The ev id en ce was als o s uf fic ie ntfora reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de Sco tt co m m it te d wi re fraudan d b an k fr au d b ecau se he “ as so ci at edhi m se lf wi tha cri m in al ve ntur e, pa rti ci pa te d i n i t as so m ethi ng he wis he d t o b rin g abo utan d so ug htby his act io ns to m ak e itsu ccee d.” Sc hw ar tz , 66 6 F .2dat 4 63 . The ev id en ce al so sh owe d t he frau d u se d i nt ers ta te wire s an d t ha t an in te nd edvi ct im was a fed eral ly-in su redfin an ci al in st itut io n, Br an chBan ki ng an d Tru st , Com pa ny. Mo reo ve r, th e jury was en ti tl edto di sb el ie ve Sco tt ’s tes ti m on y an d c om e to th e op po si te co nc lu si on of tha t t o wh ic h h e te st ifi ed- th athe di d kno w th e lo an s wer e ob ta in edfrau du le nt ly. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 53 F.3d31 2, 3 14 (19 95 ) (s ta ti ng “ a st at em en t b y

a de fen da nt , if d is be li ev edby the jury, m ay be co ns id ered as su bs ta nt iv e evi de nc e of th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t” ).

II. The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es de fin e th e “ actua l l os s” as “ th e rea so nabl y fo res eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th atres ul te d fr om

th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(A) (i) ). In c al cu la ti ng th e lo ss am ou nt , th e co m m en tary to th e 2 Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es st at es th atth e lo ss sh al l b e reduc edby “ th e am ou ntth e vi ct im ha s re co ve redat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng fro m di sp os it io n o f th e co ll at eral , or

The district cour

t’s fra ud loss calculation is revie wed f or cle ar e rror . United States v. 2 Renick , 273 F.3d 1009, 1025 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 5if t he co ll at eral ha s n otbe endi sp os edof b y th atti m e, th e fai r m ark etva lu e o f th e co ll at eral at t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(E) (ii )). The di st ric t co urt’s es ti m at e o f th e lo ss ne edon ly be rea so nabl e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ren ic k, 27 3 F .3d10 09 , 10 25 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 , comm en t. (n .3(C )). Bec au se th e se nt en ci ng jud ge is in a un ique po si ti on to ass es s t he ev id en ce an d e st im at e th e lo ss ba se d upo n t ha t ev id en ce, the co urt’s l os s de te rm in at io n i s en ti tl edto ap pr op ria te de fere nc e. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(C )). If co nt es te d, h owe ve r, th e Gov ern m en t m us t s up po rt i ts lo ss cal cu la ti on with “ rel iabl e an d s pe ci fic ev id en ce.” Ren ic k, 27 3 F .3dat 1 02 5 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n i ts cal cu la ti on of t he frau d l os s am ou ntatt rib ut edto Sco tt . The co urt ca lc ul at edth e lo ss am ou ntby usi ng th e am ou ntof m on ey

lo an ed , reduc edby the am ou ntrece iv edas ares ul t o f fo recl os ur e. Whe n t hi s m etho d p ro ve d t o b e an in accu rat e es ti m at e o n o ne pr op erty , th e co urt fu rth er re du cedth e lo ss am ou ntby the pro pe rty’ s fa ir m ark et va lu e. Fu rth er, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err whe n i t co ns id eredCh as e a v ic ti m for pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng th e lo ss cal cu la ti on be cau se Ch as e su ffer eda lo ss as a res ul t o f th e fraud . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .1) ( a “ vi ct im ” in cl ud es an y co rp or at io n tha t s us ta in edan y part o f th e actua l l os s) . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct

6co urt’s ca lc ul at io ns were re as on ab le an d b as edon “ rel iabl e an d s pe ci fic ”

ev id en ce. Reni ck , 27 3 F .3dat 1 02 5. AFFIRMED.

7