FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT May 15, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14879 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 0 2 1 2 - C R - AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C H A R L E S J . S P I N E L L I , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 15, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Acc ordingto U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b), which applies to misprision of felony claims based 1 on wirefra ud , th ede fendant’ s b a seof fens eleve l sh ould b eincre a se d b y 22 po int s if

heis re sp on sib lefo r b e tw e en $ 20mil lio n a nd $5 0 mi lli on

in l os s, but only

by 16 leve ls i f h eis re sp on sib lefo r b e tw e en $ 1 mi lli on and $2 .5 mil lio n in

los s. In Sp ine lli ’sc a se , b e inghe ld responsible for

the full $40 milli on in loss resulted in a guideline imprisonment rang e of 21 to 27 months, while beingheld re sponsible for only $1.53 milli on in loss would have re sulted in a guide lin eimp ri so nment rang eof 8 to14months .

2 C h a r le s S p in e lli ap p e a ls h is 2 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e , im p o s e d a f te rh e p le d g u ilty t o c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tw i r e f r aud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1341, 1343, a nd 13 49 (“ C ou nt1”), and m i spri si on of fe l on y, or conceal i ng and fai l i ng t o al ert a uthor i t i e s of

hi s know l e dge of

w i r e f r aud be i ng c om m i tt e d by a nothe r , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 4 ( “ C ount2” ) . S pi ne l l i c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l os s - a m ount fi nd i ng w i th regard t o C ou nt2. T he w i re fr aud u po n w hi ch thi s c harge w as base d in v o lv e d p a s s in g o f

f m o r e th a n $ 4 0 m illio n w o r th o f f r au d u le n t le tte r s o f

c r e d it ( “L O C ” ) a s c o lla te r a l f

o rw o rk e r ’s c o m p e n s a tio n in s u r a n c e p o lic ie s . S p in e lli di s c ove r e d tha tone of

the L O C s w a s f

r audul e nt . I n s e nt e nc i ng S pi ne l l i on C ount 2 , th e d i stri ctco u rth el d S p i n el l i resp o n si b l e fo r th e fu l l $ 4 0 m i l l i o n i n l o ss s uf f e r e d by the w orke r ’ s c om pe ns a t i on i ns ur a nc e pr ovi de r . S pi ne l l i a r gue d tha the shou l d n othave been hel d res po nsi bl e f or any l oss bec ause he coul d n otfore se e tha tthe f r audul e ntL O C S w oul d c aus e al os s or , a l t e rna t i ve l y , onl y s houl d ha ve been hel d res po nsi bl e f

or the val ue of the L O C thathe ca m e t o k no w w as i l l egi t i m at e, or $1 . 53 m i l l i on . F or the re as on s di sc usse d b el ow , w e a ff i rm 1 S pi nel l i ’ s s ent ence .3 I. I n pl e a di ng gui l ty , S pi ne l l i s t i pul a t e d t o the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t s . A s t o C ount1, S pi nel l i w as the ow ner a nd chi ef exec ut i ve offi ce r of B re ntw oo d C api t al C o rp o r a tio n ( “B r e n tw o o d ” ) . H e s o u g h t to p u r c h a s e , th r o u g h B r e n tw o o d , a w orke r ’ s c om pe ns a t i on i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny . T o do s o, he ne e de d appr ova l f r om the st at e i nsurance r egul at ory board, or F l ori da D epartm entof Insura nce R e g u la tio n ( “F D I R ” ) . T o o b ta in th is ap p r o v a l, S p in e lli s o u g h t to a r tif ic ia lly in f

la te B r e ntw ood’ s a s s e t s . S pi ne l l i c ont a c t e d W i l l i a m L e y t on, w ho ow ne d ac om pa ny th a t o f f e r e d as e rv ic e c a lle d “b a la n c e s h e e t e n h a n c e m e n t[ ].” L e y to n a n d S p in e lli a g r e e d th a t L e y to n w o u ld o p e n ab a n ka c c o u n t in th e n a m e o f “B r e n tw o o d C ap ita l” a nd de pos i t$5 m i l l i on i n the a c c ount . W hi l e L e y t on w oul d c ontr ol the $5 m i l l i on, S p in e lli c o u ld lis t th e m o n e y a s aB r e n tw o o d a s s e t f o rth e F D I R . I n tu rn , S p in e lli appl i ed t o p urchas e aspec i fi c i nsurance com pany, cl ai m i ng thatthe $5 m i l l i on w as a n une nc um be r e d a s s e tof B r e ntw ood’ s . W hi l e the appl i c a t i on w a s pe ndi ng, B r e n tw o o d o p e r a te d th e in s u r a n c e c o m p a n y f o rap p r o x im a te ly 1 8 m o n th s . U l t i m at el y, th e F D IR d en i ed th e ap p l i cat i o n fo r u n rel at ed reaso n s. A s t o C ount2, a n a c qua i nt a nc e of S pi ne l l i ’ s , A nthony H uf f , ow ne d T he C u ra G ro u p , In co rp o ra ted (“C u ra ”) , a co m p an y th at ac q u ired w o rk er ’s co m p en sa ti o n in su ra n ce o n b eh alf o f its clien t co m p an ies. T o ac q u ire w o rk er ’s4

c om pe ns a t i on i ns ur a nc e pol i c i e s f r om i ns ur a nc e pr ovi de r s , C ur ane e de d t o pr ovi de col l at er al thatthe i nsurance provi der c ou l d d ra w on i n the eventthatC ura defaul t ed on i t s obl i gat i on s t o p ayprem i um s a nd dedu ct i bl es on the po l i ci es . H uff soug htt o p urchas e w orker’ s c om pensat i on i nsurance pol i ci es fr om C N A F i nanci al C o rp o r a tio n ( “C N A ” ) . A c c o r d in g ly , H u f f s o u g h t as o u r c e o f

c o lla te r a l to p o s t to C N A . W i th S pi nel l i ’ s hel p, H uff c on t ac t ed L ey t on for a ss i st ance . L ey t on agre ed to fu rn ish L O C s, p u rp o rted ly fr o m a b an kan d b ac k ed b y f u n d s u n d erL ey to n ’s m a na ge m e nt , t o s e rve a s the r e qui r e d c ol l a t e r a l . L e y t on w oul d i s s ue the L O C s on be ha l f of C ur af orthe be ne f

i tof C N A a nd w oul d pa s s the m t o C N A thr ough B r e n tw o o d . A ll o f

L e y to n ’s L O C s w e r e f

r au d u le n t. O n one oc c a s i on, S pi ne l l i be c a m e a w a r e tha tthe ba nk l e tt e rhe a d on one of the L O C s ha d f

a l l e n of f of the L O C , s ugge s t i ng tha tL e y t on ha d a f f i xe d the l ett erhead t o the L O C hi m se l f. D es pi t e thi s obv i ou s s i gn thatthe L O C w as pot e nt i a l l y i l l e gi t i m a t e , S pi ne l l i di d nota dvi s e a uthor i t i e s of the pot e nt i a l f

r aud t a ki ng pl a c e . E ve n w he n S pi ne l l i w a s que s t i one d by a n a tt orne y w i th the S e c ur i t i e s a nd E xc ha nge C om m i s s i on i n the c our s e of as e pa r a t e i nve s t i ga t i on of C u r a ’s p a r e n t c o m p a n y , a n d s p e c if ic a lly a s k e d ab o u t th e L O C s , S p in e lli s a id no thi ng . U l t i m at el y, B re ntw oo d “ re ce i ved o r brokered” app roxi m at el y 18 L O C s a t af a c e a m ounte xc e e di ng $40 m i l l i on. W he n C N A f i na l l y di s c ove r e d tha tthe L O C s w e r e f

r au d u le n t, it s u f

f e r e d alo s s e q u a l to th is f a c e a m o u n t.5

A tS pi nel l i ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng , the st i pu l at ed fa ct s w er e s up pl em ent ed as f o llo w s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t e x p la in e d th a t, o v e rth e c o u r s e o f th e s c h e m e , C N A p a id w o rk e r ’ s c o mp e n s a t i o n i n s u r a n c e c l a i ms o n b e h a l f o f Cu r ath i n k i n g th a tth e c l a i ms w e r e s e c ur e d by the L O C s . H ow e ve r , i n appr oxi m a t e l y J une 2003, C ur af i l e d f or bank rupt cy , and C N A l ea rned thatthe L O C s w er e f raud ul ent , coul d n otre cover a ny f unds f r om the f r audul e ntL O C s , a nd, the r e f or e , s uf f e r e d al os s e xc e e di ng $40 m illio n . M i ke S pu t o, an agentw i th the F eder al B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on (“ F B I” ), te s tif ie d th a t, d u r in g a n in te rv ie w h e c o n d u c te d o f L e y to n , L e y to n s ta te d th a t, e a r ly in th e c o u r s e o f

th e L O C s c h e m e , h e r e c e iv e d ate le p h o n e c a ll f r o m tw o in d iv id u a ls abou ta bank l ett erhead “ po pp i ng off” of on e of the L O C s. T he i nd i vi du al s m ay h a v e b e e n H u f

f a n d S p in e lli, b u t c o u ld h a v e b e e n H u f f a n d a n o th e rc o - c o n s p ir a to r . L e y t on t ol d the m s i m pl y t o “ gl ue [ the l e tt e rhe a d] ba c k on. ” T hr ough s ubs e que nt i nve s t i ga t i on, S put o de t e rm i ne d tha t , of the 18 t ot a l L O C s i s s ue d, 3 or4 i nc l ude d a gl ue d- ort ape d- on ba nk l e tt e rhe a d. T he s e w e r e the f i r s tthr e e orf

ouri s s ue d. S pi nel l i t es t i fi ed that , i n app roxi m at el y O ct ob er20 02 , H uff s ho w ed hi m an L O C f or$1. 53 m i l l i on f

r om w hi c h the ba nk’ s l e tt e rhe a d ha d f a l l e n of f . H uf f a nd another c o-conspi ra t or ca l l ed L ey t on t o d i sc uss the l ett erhead i ss ue. L at er , H uff t ol d S pi nel l i thatL ey t on had i nd i ca t ed thatthe L O C i n q uest i on w as no tan ori gi nal a n d w a s ju s t as a m p le f

o rH u f f’s f ile s . B y th a t tim e , th e L O C “p r o g r a m ” w a s in its6

f o u r th o rf

if th m o n th , a n d s ix o rs e v e n L O C s h a d b e e n is s u e d to C N A . W h ile S pi ne l l i f ound i ts us pi c i ous tha tone L O C ha d agl ue d- on l e tt e rhe a d c apabl e of fal l i n g o ff, h e d i d n o tsu sp ectth atal l o f th e p astL O C s w ere “fake” b ecau se pe r s ons a tC N A ’ s c ol l a t e r a l c ol l e c t i on de pa r tm e ntha d r e c e i ve d, a uthe nt i c a t e d, a nd a c c e p te d th e s e p a s t L O C s . R a th e r , S p in e lli w a s in c lin e dto b e lie v e th a t th e L O C in q u e s t i o n wa s n o tm e a n tt o b e i s s u e d . He d i d n o tk n o w i f i te v e rwa s g i v e n t o C NA . B as ed on the abov e f

ac t s, S pi nel l i adm i tt ed thatC N A had suffe re d m ore th a n $ 4 0 m illio n in lo s s a s ar e s u lt o f th e L O C s c h e m e , b u t a r g u e d th a t h e s h o u ld notbe he l d r e s pons i bl e f ora ny of the l os s be c aus e he di d nota c t i ve l y c onc e a l the f r a ud a nd c oul d notha ve f or e s e e n tha tC ur aw oul d de f aul ton i t s obl i ga t i ons a nd c a u s e C N A alo s s . S p in e lli a lte rn a tiv e ly a r g u e d th a t h e s h o u ld b e h e ld r e s p o n s ib le f o ro n ly $ 1 .5 3 m illio n in lo s s b e c au s e h e d id n o t b e c o m e a w a r e o f th e s c h e m e u n til s i x ors e ve n m onths a f

t e ri tha d be gun a nd c oul d notbe he l d a c c ount abl e f orthe l os s r e s ul t i ng f

r om e ve ry L O C i s s ue d. T h e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e d th a t S p in e lli s h o u ld b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o rth e f u ll $40 m i l l i on i n l os s t o C N A be c aus e he di s c ove r e d the pos s i bl e i l l e gi t i m a c y of the L O C s e a r l y i n the c ons pi r a c y a nd, the r e f or e , c oul d ha ve f

or e s t a l l e d a ny l os s by a l e r t i ng C N A tha ta l l of the L O C s m a y ha ve be e n f r audul e nt . T he gove rnm e nt expl ai ned thatC N A ’ s l oss di d n otoccur w hen L ey t on i ss ued the L O C s or w hen C N A pai d the w orker’ s c om pensat i on i nsurance c l ai m s f or C ura, bu tra ther w hen7

C u r ad e c la r e d b a n k ru p tc y a n d d e f au lte d o n its p r e m iu m a n d d e d u c tib le o b lig a tio n s . T he gove rnm e ntl i ke w i s e e xpl a i ne d tha tthi s e ve ntoc c urr e d l ong a f t e rthe l e tt e rhe a d i nc i de nta nd, i nde e d, a f t e ra l l 18 L O C s w e r e i s s ue d. T he gove rnm e nt further e xp l ai ned that , had S pi nel l i al ert ed C N A , C N A coul d h ave dem anded s u b s titu te c o lla te r a l f

r o m C u r alo n g b e f

o r e it d e f au lte d a n d , th u s , s u f

f e r e d n o lo s s . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tS pi ne l l i w a s r e s pons i bl e f orthe f ul l a m ountof lo s s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a s o n e d th a t, f r o m th e tim e th a t S p in e lli d is c o v e r e d in O ct ob er20 02 thatthe L O C s m ayhave been i l l egi t i m at e unt i l the t i m e w hen C ura decl ar ed bank rupt cyi n Jun e 200 3, approx i m at el y ni ne m on ths pass ed du ri ng w hi ch S p in e lli c o u ld h a v e a le r te d th e a u th o r itie s a n d C N A c o u ld h a v e o b ta in e d s u b s titu te c o lla te r a l to a v o id o rm itig a te its lo s s . II. W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s a m ou nt -of- l oss f i nd i ng for c l ea r e rr or. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C abr e r a , 172 F . 3d 1287, 1292 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc our ti s i n auni que pos i t i on t o a s s e s s the e vi de nc e a nd de t e rm i ne the ap p r o p r ia te lo s s a m o u n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g is e n title d to d e f

e r e n c e . U . S . S . G . § 2B 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 3( C ) ) . T he gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove the a ttr i but abl e l os s by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D abbs , 134 F . 3d 1071, 1081 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he gove rnm e ntm us tof f e r“ r e l i abl e a nd s p e c if ic e v id e n c e ” to s a tis f

y th is b u r d e n . I d .8

P ur s ua ntt o § 2B 1. 1, w hi c h appl i e s t o m i s pr i s i on of f e l ony c l a i m s ba s e d on w i r e f r a ud, the l os s tha tthe de f e nda nts houl d be he l d r e s pons i bl e f ora ts e nt e nc i ng i s “ the r e a s onabl y f

or e s e e abl e pe c uni a ry ha rm tha tr e s ul t e d f r om the of

f e ns e , ” or th e “ p ecu n i ary h arm th atth e d efen d an tk n ew , o r, u n d er th e ci rcu m st an ces, r e a s o n ab l y s h o u l d h a v e k n o wn , wa s ap o t e n t i a l r e s u l to f th e o f f e n s e . ” U. S . S . G. § 2 B 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 3 (I) , (i v)). L i kew i se , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3, w hi ch de f i ne s the r e l e va ntc onduc ttha ts houl d be c ons i de r e d w he n s e nt e nc i ng a defe nd ant , “ al l re as on abl y f ores ee abl e a ct s a nd om i ss i on s of others i n furthera nce of [ a ] j oi nt l y unde r t a ke n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ” s houl d be w e i ghe d i n de t e rm i ni ng the a m o u n to f

l o s s f o rwh i c h th e d e f

e n d a n ti s r e s p o n s i b l e . S e e U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1. 3(a) (1)( B ). T hi s provi si on appl i es even w hen the defendanti s notchar ged o rc o n v ic te d o f

c o n s p ir a c y f

o rh is o rh e rr o le in th e s c h e m e . I d .

III. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n hol di ng S pi ne l l i r e s pons i bl e f orthe f ul l $40 m i l l i on l os s t o C N A . S e e C abr e r a , 172 F . 3d a t1292. A pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e s ugge s t s tha tthe t ot a l va l ue of a l l of the L O C s i s s ue d w a s the r e a s o n ab ly f

o r e s e e ab le p e c u n ia ry h a rm th a t w o u ld r e s u lt f r o m L e y to n ’s a c tio n s . S ee D abbs, 13 4 F . 3d at10 81 ; U . S . S . G . §§ 2B 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 3 (I) , (i v)), 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 1) ( B ) . T hi s e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s tha tS pi ne l l i kne w , ors houl d ha ve kn ow n, un der the ci rc um st ance s, thatal l of the L O C s pot ent i al l y w er e i l l egi t i m at e,9

th a t C N A m a y e v e n tu a lly n e e d to d r a w o n th e s e L O C s , a n d th a t, in th a t e v e n t, C N A w o u ld s u f

f e ralo s s . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n . 3 ( I ) , ( iv ) ) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , be c aus e S pi ne l l i pl e d gui l ty t o m i s pr i s i on of f e l ony a nd s tip u la te d to f

a c ts d e s c r ib in g th e f

e lo n y a s f

r au d r e la te d to p a s s in g o f f ille g itim a te L O C s a s c o lla te r a l, it is c le a rth a t S p in e lli k n e w th a t L e y to n w a s e n g a g in g in th is f e lo n io u s a c tiv ity . A n y a r g u m e n t th a t S p in e lli d id n o t k n o w o f th is f r au d is w ith o u t m e r it, g iv e n th e g u ilty p le aa n d s tip u la te d f a c ts . A ls o , th e s tip u la te d f a c ts p o in t to th e le tte rh e a d in c id e n t a s th e s o u r c e o f S p in e lli’s k n o w le d g e , s u c h th a t it is c l e a rtha tS pi ne l l i a tl e a s tkne w tha tthe L O C i n que s t i on w a s i l l e gi t i m a t e a nd, th e r e f o r e , c o u ld r e a s o n ab ly h a v e f o r e s e e n alo s s o f

$ 1 .5 3 m illio n to C N A . Ho we v e r , th e e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s th a t , o n c e S p i n e l l i k n e w th a tth i s o n e L OC w as i l l egi t i m at e, he had am pl e r ea son t o b el i eve thatal l of the L O C s w er e ille g itim a te . F r o m S p in e lli’s g u ilty p le ato C o u n t 1 a n d th e s tip u la te d f a c ts p ert ai n i n g t o th i s co n v i ct i o n , i ti s ev i d en tth atS p i n el l i k n ew th atL eyt o n ’ s b u si n ess r e vol ve d a r ound f

r aud. K now i ng tha tL e y t on’ s bus i ne s s a c t i vi t i e s w e r e f r audul e nt a n d th a t o n e o f

th e L O C s is s u e d b y L e y to n in d e e d w a s f r au d u le n t, S p in e lli re as on abl y s ho ul d h ave kno w n thatany L O C i ss ued b y L ey t on l i kel y w as f r a udul e nta l s o. M or e ove r , the e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s tha tS pi ne l l i kne w the n u m b eran d w o rth o f th es e L O C s, as ea ch m ad e its w ay th ro u g h S p in elli ’s com pany. T hu s, S pi nel l i coul d rea sonabl y have f ores ee n thatC N A m ay10

e x p e r ie n c e alo s s s te m m in g f r o m e a c h o f

th e L O C s , r a th e rth a n s im p ly th e o n e . F u rth er m o re , g iv en th at S p in elli w as a b u sin es sm an w h o o p er ated a w o rk er ’s c om pe ns a t i on i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny f or18 m onths , the e vi de nc e s ugge s t s tha the unde r s t ood the purpos e of the L O C s . T hus , S pi ne l l i c oul d r e a s onabl y ha ve f o r e s e e n th a t C N A m a y o n e d a y d r a w o n th is s o u r c e o f c o lla te r a l to c o v e rits clien t’ s d ed u ctib le- a n d p re m iu m -p ay in g o b li g atio n s. A n y c laim th at C u ra ’s b a n k ru p tc y a n d C N A ’s a tte m p t to d r a w o n th e L O C s w e r e u n f o r e s e e ab le i nt erveni ng causes thatre m ov ed S pi nel l i fr om re spon si bi l i ty i s w i tho utm er i t , as serv i n g as co l l at eral t o b e d raw n o n i n th e ev en to f a d efau l tw as th e v ery p u rp o se o f th e L O C s . M o r e o v e r , a ls o g iv e n S p in e lli’s b u s in e s s e x p e r ie n c e , th e e v id e n c e s u g g e s ts thatS pi nel l i l i kel y knew that , i f he a l ert ed C N A thateven on e of the L O C s w as i l l egi t i m at e, C N A w ou l d h ave i nv es t i gat ed and ei ther dem anded o ther c ol l at er al fro m C u ra o r st o p p ed d o i n g b u si n ess w i th C u ra al t o g eth er, th ereb y l i m i t i n g i t s l o ss s i gni f i c a nt l y . T hus , S pi ne l l i c oul d r e a s onabl y ha ve f or e s e e n tha the c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng t o pr e ve ntC N A ’ s l os s , s uc h tha tthe e vi de nc e i l l us tr a t e s tha t , but f o rS p in e lli’s s ile n c e , C N A w o u ld n o t h a v e s u f f e r e d th e $ 4 0 m illio n lo s s . T here fore , re l i abl e a nd spec i fi c e vi dence s up po rt s the di stri ctcourt ’ s a m ou nt -of-We notethat Sp ine llialsoha s a rgue d o n a

pp e al th at th edis tric t c ourt ’samou nt- of -l os s 2 findingwas c learly

erroneous bec ause it differed significantly from the amount-of-loss finding made in sentencinga similarly situated co-c onspirator. Spinelli points t o J ose Ka ufman. The evidenc e demonstrates that Kauf man signed one of

the L OCs, repre sentingthat he wa s the senior vic epre sident o f t

heba nk that L ey ton c laime d is su e d th eL OC s. Ka uf man alsolet L ey

ton us e Kauf man’s telephonenumber on c ertain L OCs, repre sentingthat it was the number of the bank. Ka u f m anf urth er f o r w ard e d m e s s ag e s f

ro mt e l ep h o n ec al l er s l o o ki n gf o r th eb ank t o Ley t o n . In ple adingguilty, Ka

uf man o nly stipulate d tofac ts p ertainingto t heon eL OChesigne d. B e c a us e the evidenc e demonstrates that Kauf man saw only

a sing le L OC when every L OC passed through Brentwood, and that Kaufma n’s stipulated facts did not referenceall 18 L OCs, when Spinelli’s did, S pinelli’s argument is not convincing . Rather, it appe ars that the district c ourt had rea son to determine that Ka ufman a nd Spinelli di d not merit analog ous sentence s.

11 l oss f i nd i ng . S ee D abbs, 13 4 F . 3d at10 81 . A cc ordi ng l y, because the di stri ct 2 co u rt d idn o t clear ly er r in d eter m in in g th e lo ss am o u n t, w e a ff irm S p in elli ’s s e nt e nc e . S e e C abr e r a , 172 F . 3d a t1292. W e not e thatthe S i xth C i rc ui t ’ s r ec entdeci si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v, S osebee , 41 9 F . 3d 45 1 (6th C i r. 20 05 ), supp ort s our concl usi on . In thatca se , ou r s i st er ci rc ui tconsi dere d w hether adefe nd antconv i ct ed of m i spri si on of fe l on y w as r e s pons i bl e f

orthe f ul l a m ountof

f i na nc i a l l os s s uf

f e r e d by the vi c t i m f

orthe pu rposes of a r es t i tut i on order. Id. at45 5, 45 9. T he defendantow ned a pha rm a c e ut i c a l s a l e s c om pa ny a nd e nt e r e d i nt o a n a gr e e m e ntw i th a p h a rm a c e u tic a l s u p p ly c o m p a n y w h e r e b y h e rc o m p a n y c o u ld s e ll p r o d u c ts to g o v e rn m e n t a g e n c ie s f

o ralo w e rp r ic e . I d . a t 4 5 4 - 5 5 . H e rc o m p a n y in itia lly w o u l d p ay fu l l p ri ce an d th en , u p o n sel l i n g th e p ro d u ct s t o a g o v ern m en tag en cy, w o u ld a le r t th e s u p p ly c o m p a n y a n d r e c e iv e ar e f u n d f o rth e d if f e r e n c e in c o s t. I d . H ow e ve r , the de f

e nda nte ve ntua l l y be ga n s e l l i ng the pr oduc t s t o non- gove rnm e nt12

a g e n c ie s a n d c la im in g o th e rw is e a n d d e m a n d in g ar e f u n d . I d . W h e n th e s u p p ly com pany became suspi ci ou s a nd as ked for proo f thatcom pani es w er e i nd ee d g o v e rn m e n t a g e n c ie s , th e d e f e n d a n t p r o v id e d f

r au d u le n t d o c u m e n ts . I n th is m a n n e r , s h e u l t i m a t e l y r e c e i v e d m o r e th a n $ 2 m i l l i o n i n i m p r o p e rr e f u n d s . I d . On appeal , the defendantar gu ed thatshe w as no tl i abl e f or any r es t i tut i on , because her ac tof conceal m entt oo k p l ac e onl y a ft erthe l oss f rom the fr aud o cc urre d. Id. at 45 9. T he S i xth C i rc ui tre j ec t ed thi s a rgum ent , re as on i ng thatthe re cord d e m o n s tr a te d th a t “[ th e d e f e n d a n t] k n e w o f

th e f r au d w h ile th e c o n s p ir a c y w a s in p r o g r e s s , p e rh ap s e v e n f r o m its b e g in n in g . . . a n d c o n c e a le d th e s c h e m e w h ile it w a s i n pr ogr e s s ” a nd tha t“ butf orhe rc ont i nui ng c onc e a l m e ntof the l os s e s be i ng i ncurred by [the supp l y c om pany] , tho se l osse s m i gh thave been avoided al t og ether o rs te m m e d to as ig n if

ic a n t d e g r e e .” I d . A l tho ug h the qu es t i on i n thatca se w as no tho w m uch o f the l oss w as attri bu t abl e t o the defendantfor the pu rposes of se tt i ng a bas e off ense l evel , as he r e , butr a the rw he the rthe de f e nda ntw a s r e s pons i bl e f ora ny of the l os s f

orthe purpos e s of

or de r i ng r e s t i tut i on, the c onc e pttha tthe de f e nda nti s a c c ount abl e f

or the e nt i r e l os s w he r e he di s c ove r e d, a nd c oul d ha ve done s om e thi ng t o pr e ve nt , the po t ent i al l oss i n the course of the fr audu l entsc hem e i s app l i cabl e. AF F I RME D.