FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 77 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 01 38 -ODE-GGB-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s VERNON A. ROBERTS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Vern on Ro be rts ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es foron e co un t o f

co ns pi rin g t o c omm ittax frau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 1, an d e ig htco un ts of aid in g a ndass is ti ng th e p rep arat io n a ndfil in g o f fal se pe rs on al in co m e ta x returns , invi ol at io n o f I.R.C. § 72 06 (2 ) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. Ro be rts (a fo rm er pr of es si on al in co m e ta x p rep arer ) an d t wo co -co ns pi rat or s (e m pl oyees o f Ro be rts ’s tax pre parat io n c om pa ny) so li ci te d b us in es s fr om Uni te d S ta te s Vi rg in Is la nd s (“ USVI”) re si de nt s, the n fi le d fr au du le ntreturns with t he Uni te d S ta te s In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) on be ha lf o f th es e USVI res id en ts . The returns li st edfak e Geo rg iaad dr es se s, i nc lu de d fa ls e p ers on al da ta , andcla im edth e earne d in co m e ta x c red it(EIC). 1 Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt (1 ) ga ve anerro ne ou s ju ry in st ru ct io n, erre d i n d en y in g R ob ert s’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d m ot io n fo r a n ew tri al , andab us edit s d is cret io n i n d eny in g h is pro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns ; (2 ) ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng tes ti m on y un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 40 4( b) co nc ern in g R ob ert s’s fa ls e st at em en ts an d p rio r co nv ic ti on s; an d (3 ) cl earl y erre d i n c al cu la ti ng th e ta x l os s amoun t. As a n i ni ti al m atte r, th e g ov ern m en t h as m ov edto fil e a co rrec te d b rie f, an d tha t m ot io n i s GRANTED. The co rrec te d b rie f The EI C is available to USVI residents who c laim the EI C on their USVI tax returns. 1 Howeve r, it can ta

ke year s to rece ive tax refunds in the USVI , wher eas r efunds a re of ten available within one or two day s in the United States if the e- filing sy stem is used. 2ha s b eenco ns id eredinde ci di ng th is ap pe al . After c aref ul rev ie w of the bri efs an d th e rec or d, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt. I. Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt’s jury in stru ct io ns —tha t o nl y in di vi du al s wh o l iv e in th e Uni te d S ta te s, d efi ne d a s t he fif ty stat es an d t he Dis tri ctof C ol um

bi a, m ay fil e ta x re tu rn s wi thth e IRS cla im in g t he EIC—we re i n erro r, an d h e ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io ns foracqui tt al an d a ne w tri al th atwere b as edon th is arg um en t. We revi ew th e le ga l co rrec tn es s o f a jury ins tru ct io n de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr athe r , 20 5 F .3d12 65 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Howev er, as lo ng as ju ry in st ru ct io ns accu rat el y

refl ectth e la w, di st ric t co urts ha ve bro addi sc ret io n i n fo rm ul at in g t he m ; we wi ll no t re ve rs e a co nv ic ti on on th e b as is of ajury in st ru ct io n “ un le ss th e is su es of l aw were p res en te d in accu rat el y , or t he ch arg e im pr op erl y gu id edth e jury in s uc h asubs tant ia l way as to vi ol at e due pro ces s.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r acqui tt al de no vo , Uni te d Sta tes v. Eva ns , 47 3 F .3d11 15 , 11 18 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ), an d the de ni al of am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, Uni te d Sta tes v. Per ez -Oli ver os , 47 9 F .3d77 9, 7 82 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The di stric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t u nd er the U.S. Int ern al Rev enue Co de , “ a p ers on is on ly elig ib le to cla im th e Earn edInc om e Tax Cred it. . . if t ha t 3pe rs on ’s pri nc ip al pl ace o f ab od e was inth e Uni te d S ta te s, an d wh enI sa y Uni te d St at es he re, I m eanth e 5 0 s ta te s an d t he Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a.” He ex pl ai ne d t ha t a p rin ci pa l p la ce o f ab od e is a pl ace wh ere ape rs on res id es “ fo r m or e th anha lf o f th e y ear.” Rob ert s co nt en ds th atth is is a m is st at em en t o f th e la w bec au se USVI res id en ts m ay

(1) fil e in th e Uni te d S ta te s an d (2 ) cl ai m th e EIC o n t he ir U.S. returns . Ro be rts ’s firs t ar gu m en t re li es on a co nv ol ut edread in g o f I.R.C. § 93 2. Th e te xtof S ect io n 9 32 st at es th atbo nafid e res id en ts of t he Virg in Isl an ds “ sh al l fil e anin co m e ta x re tu rnforth e ta xabl e y ear wi th th e Vir gi n Is la nd

s ” an d s uc ces sf

ul pa ym en t t o t he USVI of

all tax es owedwil l ex cu se USVI res id en ts fro m U.S. tax li ab il it y . I.R.C. § 9 32 (c)( 2) , (4) (em ph as is ad de d) . Rob ert s ar gu es th atth is la ng ua ge ab ou t re si du al li ab il ity to th e Uni te d S ta te s i nd ic at es th atUSVI res id en ts m ay sel ectwhet he r to pa y

tax es to th e USVI o r th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ho wev er, Ro be rts po in ts to no auth or it y to ex pl ai n wh y

a st atut e st at in g aco njunc ti ve li ab il it y (USVI res id en ts sh al l pa y tax es to th e USVI an d

als o re m ai n l iabl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i f th is is no t d on e), i n wh ic h t he li ab il it y to th e USVI i s p rimary , sh ou ldbe tre at edas d is

jun ct iv e (USVI re si de nt s m ay ch oo se whet he r to pa y

th e USVI or th e Uni te d S ta te s) . The cl ear m an da te of I.R .C. § 9 32 (c) i s t ha t USVI

4res id en ts sh al l pay tax es to th e USVI; th ere i s n o l an gu ag e ab ou t el ect in g o ne ’s co un try of p refe ren ce i n wh ic h t o p ay . Ro be rts th enarg ue s t ha t USVI re si de nt s m ay cla im th e EIC i n the Uni te d St at es . The EIC i s a t ax cred itth atwas e na ct ed“ to reduc e th e d is in cen ti ve to work c au se d b y

th e im po si ti on of S oc ia l Se cu rit y tax es onearn edin co m e, to st im ul at e th e eco no m

y by fun ne li ng fun ds to pe rs on s l ik el y to sp en d t he m on ey imm ed ia te ly, an d t o p ro vi de rel ie f fo r lo w-in co m e fam il ie s h urt b y ris in g fo odan d en erg y pri ces .” In re J

ames , 40 6 F .3d13 40 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (al te rat io n, em ph as is , andqu ot at io n o m it te d) . It i s av ai labl e to in di vi du al s wh o h av e a pr in ci pa l p la ce o f ab od e in th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r m or e th ansi x m on th s o f th e y ear. I.R.C. § 32 (c)( 1) (A)(i i)( I). “ Uni te d S ta te s” is no t s pe ci fic al ly defi ne d wi th in Sect io n 3 2. Ho wev er, the ge ne ral de fin it io ns sec ti on of t he Int ern al Rev enue Co de st at es th at“ whe re n otothe rwis e d is ti nc tl y ex pr es se d o r m an ife st ly in co m pa ti bl e wit h t he in te ntth ereo f . . . ‘ Uni te d S ta te s’ when us edina ge og rap hi cal sen se in cl ud es on ly the Sta te s an d t he Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a.” I.R.C. § 7 70 1( a)(9 ). The d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y ch os e to ap pl y

th is de fin it io n, as co nf irmed by a lat er IR S reg ul at io n tha t “ Uni te d S ta te s” do es no t i nc lu de th e USVI fo r th e p ur

po se s o f th e EIC res id en cy requi rem en t. Se e 26 C.F.R. § 1.9 32 - 1( g) (2 )(i ii )(A). 5Ro be rts arg ue s, h owe ve r, th atI.R.C. § 76 51 (“ Adm in is tra ti on an d

Co ll ect io n o f Tax es inPo ss es si on s” ) sh ou ldco nt ro l the m ean in g o f “ Uni te d St at es ” in th e co nt ex t o f EIC el ig ib il it y . W e d is ag ree. Se ct io n 7 65 1 i s i nt en de d t o faci li ta te co ll ect io n o f ta xe s i n t he U.S. po ss es si on s, an d t hu s d ecl ares th at“ Uni te d St at es ” sh al l b e d efi ne d t o i nc lu de th e U.S. po ss es si on s fo r th e p ur po se s o f ta x co ll ect io n a nden fo rcem en t. The re i s n o re as on to all ow thi s l im it ed -s co pe de fin it io n t o t ru m

p t he ge ne ral -p ur

po se de fin it io n o f “ Uni te d S ta te s.” Fu rth erm or e, th e jury ins tru ct io n s ta te d n otth atUSVI res id en ts m ay no t cl ai m

th e EIC—i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the y m ay cla im iton USVI ta x re tu rn s— bu t tha t USVI res id en ts m ay

no t cl ai m

th e EIC o n aU.S. tax return. Th is is a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f la w, as the ap pr op ria te pl ace f orUSVI res id en ts to fil e returns an d c la im tax cred it s o n t he se returns is th e USVI. Becaus e th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly ins tru ct ed th e jury in a cco rd an ce wi thth e la w, we affi rm th e d en ia l o f Ro be rts ’s m ot io ns for a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d fo r a n ew tr ia l. Ro be rts ad di ti on al ly argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y reject edhi s pr op os edjury in st ru ct io ns . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. K lo pf , 42 3 F .3d 12 28 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A cou rt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a d efen se in stru ct io n i s rev ers ib le erro r if

“ (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n was a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w, 6(2 ) it s s ub

ject m atte r was no t s ub st an ti al ly cov eredby oth er i ns tru ct io ns , and(3) it s s ub ject m at te r de al t wi th anis su e in th e tr ia l co urt tha t was so im po rtantth at fai lu re t o g iv e itser io us ly im pa ire d t he de fen dant ’s abi li ty to d efen d h im se lf.” Uni te d Sta tes v. La nz on , 63 9 F .3d12 93 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io ns om it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 3 33 (20 11 ). W e h av e rev ie wed Ro be rts ’s pro po se d ju ry

in st ru ct io ns an d fi ndth atso m e p orti on s ar e in co rrec t st at em en ts of l aw, an d t he rem ai nd er o f th e in st ru ct io ns are ei th er cu m ul at iv e o r un rel at edto im

po rtantis su es at t ria l. The di stric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e th e pr op os edjury in st ru ct io ns was t he refo re n otrev ers ib le erro r. II. Nex t, Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng tes ti m on y co nc ern in g h is fal se st at em en ts on two ap pl ic at io ns to th e IRS foranele ctro ni c fil in g i de nt ifi cat io n n um

be r (“ EFIN”). The IRS g ran te d b ot h app li cat io ns , and Ro be rts lat er u se d h is EFIN to fil e th e ta x re tu rn s atis su e in th is cas e. Becaus e Ro be rts ha d i nc orrect ly stat edon th e EFIN ap pl ic at io ns th athe ha d n ev er b een co nv ic te d o f a cri m e, th e d is tri ctco urt al lo wedth e g ov ern m en t t o p res en t ev id en ce of hi s fo urpri orco nv ic ti on s i n o rd er t o d em on st rat e th e fal si ty of hi s s ta te m en t. Ro be rts co nt en ds th atth is was e rro r be cau se th e fal se st at em en ts m ad e o n t he

7EFIN ap pl ic at io ns were n otin ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith t he co ns pi racy, norwere

th ey adm is si bl e und er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ). Whe n ade fen da ntpro pe rly pres erv es hi s cl ai m , we rev ie w th e d is tri ct co urt’s ru li ng s o n t he adm is si onof e vi de nc e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Jime ne

z , 22 4 F .3d12 43 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Even if t he re i s an ab us e of di sc ret io n, we wi ll rev ers e anerro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng “ on ly if th e err orwas no t h arm le ss .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br adle y , 64 4 F .3d12 13 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (al te rat io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . “ An erro r is ha rm le ss un le ss th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitaffe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Id. (al te rat io n and qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e n eedno t re ve rs e a co nv ic ti on if t he ev id en ti ary erro r “ ha d no subs ta nt ia l i nf

lu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby erro r supp orts th e v erd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha wki ns , 90 5 F .2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ). The adm is si on of e vi de nc e co nc ern in g unc ha rg edcri m in al co nduc t i s go ve rn edby Feder al Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 , whi chst at es th atev id en ce o f “ ot he r cri m es , wron gs or a ct s i s n otadm is si bl e to pro ve th e ch arac te r of a pe rs on ,” bu t

“ m ay , ho wev er, b e ad m is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , su chas p ro of of m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p la n, kno wled ge , id en ti ty, or ab se nc e o f m is ta ke oracci de nt .” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). The s tru ctur e o f th e ru le crea te s a t wo- st ep 8adm is si bi li ty inqui ry . Firs t, an un ch arg edcri m e o r ba d a ctm ay be in tri ns ic to th e cas e, an d t he refo re o ut si de th e sc op e o f Ru le 40 4( b) , if i t i s: “ (1 ) anun ch arg ed of fen se whi charo se ou t o f th e sa m e tr an sa ct io n o r se rie s o f tr an sa ct io ns as t he ch arg edoff

en se , (2) ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e, or(3) in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith t he ev id en ce re ga rd in g the ch arg edoff en se .” Uni te d St at es v. McLea n , 13 8 F .3d13 98 , 14 03 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Seco nd , evi de nc e reg ard in g a ct s n otpa rt o f th e ch arg edcri m es bu t p ert ai ni ng to th e co nt ex t, m ot iv e, an d s et -up o f th e cri m es is pro pe rly adm it te d i f itis “ li nk edin ti m e an d c irc um st an ces with the ch arg edcri m e, or form s an in te gr al an d n atur al pa rt o f anacco un t o f th e cri m e, oris ne ces sary to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e fo r th e jury.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . If the pri orba d a ctor c on vi ct io n i s n otin tri ns ic to th e ch arg edcri m e, Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ) wil l d et erm in e it s ad m is si bi li ty. Uni te d Sta tes v. Veltman n , 6 F.3 d 1 48 3, 1 49 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . W e ap pl y a th ree- pa rt t es t t o de te rm in e whe th er a d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng ex tri ns ic ev id en ce u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) : (1 ) th e ev id en ce m us t b e rel ev an t t o a n i ss ue ot he r th anth e d efen da nt ’s cha ract er; (2) th e actm us t b e es tabl is he d b y

su ffi ci en t p ro of to pe rm ita jury find in g tha t the de fen da ntco m m it te d t he ex tri ns ic act ; an d (3 ) th e pr ob at iv e v al ue of t he ev id en ce m us t n otbe subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby its un du e 9pr ejud ic e an d m us t m eetth e o th er re qu ire m en ts of F ed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 03 . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma tthe ws , 43 1 F .3d12 96 , 13 10 –1 1 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) (pe r cu ria m). Evi de nc e is ex cl ud edun de r Ru le 40 3 “ if i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edby the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n o f th e is su es , or m is le ad in g t he jury. ” Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03 . Rul e 4 03 is an“ ex tra or di na ry rem edy ,” an d i ts m ajorfun ct io n i s t o e xc lu de “ m at te r of sca ntor c um

ul at iv e p ro ba ti ve for ce, dr ag ge d i n b y

th e h eel s fo r th e sa ke of p reju di ci al effe ct .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ut te r , 97 F.3d50 9, 5 14 –5 15 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . The fal se st at em en ts m ad e o n t he EFIN ap pl ic at io ns were i ne xt ric ab ly in te rtwi ne d a s a n eces sary pa rt o f th e co ns pi racy andoff eredto pro ve Ro be rts ’s in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p la n, an d kno wled ge rel ev an t t o t he ch arg edcri m es . “ Inev ery co ns pi racy case . . . a n otgu il ty ple a ren de rs th e d efen da nt ’s in te nta m at eri al is su e

. . . . Evi de nc e o f su chex tri ns ic ev id en ce as m ay be pro ba ti ve of ade fen dant ’s st at e o f m in d i s ad m is si bl e unl es s h e affi rm at iv el y tak es th e is su e o f in te ntou t o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro be rt s , 61 9 F .2d37 9, 3 83 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) (qu ot at io n 2 om it te d) . Rob ert s p le d n otgu il ty andde ni edan y in vo lv em en t wi th th e co ns pi racy, cl ai min g t ha t h is e-fi li ng of t he fal se tax returns was b y m is ta ke or a cci de nt . The

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) w e 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all of the dec isions of the Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to October 1, 1981. 10factth athe ha d p rev io us ly sub m it te d fa ls e in fo rm at io n t o t he vi ct im , th e IRS , th us

was rel ev an t t o p ro ve hi s i nt en t t o d efraudth e IRS . Add it io na ll y , th e g ov ern m en t of fere d s uf fic ie ntpro of

of t he ev id en ce, an d the pro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e ev id en ce was no t o ut weig he d b y

un du e p reju di ce. We fin d n o abu se of d is cret io n b y th e di st ric t co urt. Mo reo ve r, an y

po ss ib le erro r by the di st ric t co urt was ha rm le ss , as the te st im on y of R ob ert s’ co- co ns pi rat or s, num ero us tax pa y ers , andIRS ag en ts supp orte d t he jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s adm is si on of e vi de nc e reg ard in g R ob ert s’s fa ls e st at em en ts on hi s EFIN ap pl ic at io ns an d t he co rres po nd in g m is de m ean or co nv ic ti on s. III. Fi na ll y , Rob ert s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly calcu la te d t he tax lo ss us edto de te rm in e h is sen te nc e an d t he res ti tu ti on am ou nt . He di sp ut es th e us e o f anin te nd ed -lo ss m eas ur e an d c la im s t ha t s om e o f th e ta x re fu nd s h e subm it te d wer e n otfrau du le ntan d t he refo re s ho ul d n otha ve be enin cl ud edinth e lo ss cal cu la ti on . W e rev ie w forcle ar err orth e d is tri ctco urt’s l os s d et erm in at io n fo r pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ab re ra , 17 2 F .3d12 87 , 12 92 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ). W e al so rev ie w forcle ar err or th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g o f th e

11sp eci fic am ou ntof r es ti tu ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro be rt so n , 49 3 F .3d13 22 , 13 30 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Tax off en se s s en te nc edpu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 T4 ar e cal cu la te d u si ng a ba se off en se lev el res ul ti ng fro m

th e ta x l os s, as setou t i n t he tab le co nt ai ne d i n U.S.S.G. § 2 T4.1 . U.S.S.G. § 2T1 .4(a )(1 ). Tax l os s i s d efi ne d a cco rd in g t o t he pr ov is io ns of U.S.S.G. § 2T1 .1. Id . § 2 T1.4 (a). U.S.S.G. § 2 T1.1 st at es th at“ [i]f th e o ffen se in vo lv edtax ev as io n o r afr au du le nt or fa ls e re tu rn , st at em en t, o r ot he r do cu m en t, the tax lo ss is th e to ta l a mou nt of lo ss th at wa s the ob

je ct of th e o ff en se ( i.e. , th e lo ss th atwou ldhave res ul te d h adth e o ffen se be ensu cces sf ul ly co m pl et ed ).” Id. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 1) (em ph as es ad de d) . “ If the off en se in vo lv ed im pr op erl y cla im in g arefund to whi chth e cl ai m an t was no t en ti tl ed , th e ta x l os s i s th e am ou ntof t he cla im edrefu ndto whi chth e cl ai m an t was no t en ti tl ed .” Id. § 2T1 .1(c )(4 ). Bec au se Ro be rts fil edfrau du le ntor f al se returns , th e d is tri ctco urt em pl oyed anin te nd ed -lo ss m eas ur e, in acco rd an ce wi th U.S.S.G. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 1) . Howev er, Ro be rts arg ue s t ha t the us e o f th e in te nd edlo ss m eas ur e was cle arl y erro ne ou s an d ci te s the lan gu ag e o f U.S.S.G. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 4) insupp ort o f hi s p os it io n. Ro be rts ’s arg um en t s im

pl y am ou nt s t o apro te st at io n t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t m ak e it s de te rm in at io ns inacco rdwith U.S.S.G. § 2T1 .1(c )(4 ). Ro be rts gi ve s n o 12ex pl an at io n re ga rd in g wh y U.S.S.G. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 4) m or e ap pr op ria te ly app li es to th is cas e th anU.S.S.G. § 2 T1.1 (c)( 1) , andoff ers no supp ort fo r a fi nd in g o f cl ear erro r. Nor d oe s R ob ert s o fferan y ev id en ce o f le gi ti m at e returns subm it te d and pr op erl y refu nd edby the IRS. We the refo re fi ndno cle ar erro r in th e d is tri ct co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f ta x l os s. Ro be rts als o arg ue s t ha t the res ti tu ti on am ou ntde te rm in edwas i n c le ar erro r be cau se itwas b as edup on th e cl earl y erro ne ou s l os s ca lc ul at io n m ad e at se nt en ci ng . The am ou ntof r es ti tu ti on canbe de te rm in edon th e b as is of e vi de nc e he arddu rin g t ria l, u nd is pu te d s ta te m en ts inth e Pre se nt en ce In ve st ig at io n R ep ort, orev id en ce p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g h eari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. S au nder s , 31 8 F.3 d 1 25 7, 1 27 1 n .22 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Becaus e we fi ndth atth e lo ss cal cu la ti on atsen te nc in g was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s, we the refo re fi ndno m eri t i n R ob ert s’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt cl earl y erredincal cu la ti ng th e res ti tu ti on am ou nt . AFFIRMED.

13