Source: https://www.herringandherringlaw.com/calculating-loss-for-economic-crimes-under-the-united-states-sentencing-guidelines/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:36:33+00:00

Document:
court may also choose from competing methods of calculating loss.
be included in the loss calculation.
1 See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §2B1.1 (Nov. 2010).
2 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n. 3).
3 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n. 3(C)).
of the evidence at the sentencing hearing).
6 See United States v. Neadle, 72 F.3d 1104 (3d Cir. 1995), amended by 79 F.3d 14 (3d Cir. 1996).
7 United States v. Hoffman-Vaile, 568 F.3d 1335, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2009).
could not have “reasonably foreseen” the downturn in the housing market. In United States v.
9 United States v. Catalfo, 64 F.3d 1070, 1082-83 (7th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Wilkins, 308 F.
App’x 920 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2805 (2009); United States v. Mauskar, 557 F.3d 219 (5th Cir.), cert.
Cir. 2009); United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 488 (2010) ; United States v.
Robinson, 603 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010). But see United States v. Goodheart, 345 F. App’x 523, 525 (11th Cir.
actually joined the conspiracy for the purposes of establishing loss).
10 United States v. McClatchey, 316 F.3d 1122, 1128 (10th Cir. 2003).
11 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(iv)).
12 United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1014-15 (8th Cir. 2011).
includes loss that would have been impossible or unlikely.23 For example, in United States v.
16 United States v. Woolf Turk, 626 F.3d 743, 747 (2d Cir. 2010).
18 United States v. Whiting, 471 F.3d 792, 793 (7th Cir. 2006).
22 United States v. Rothwell, 387 F.3d 579, 584 (6th Cir. 2004).
23 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)).
25 United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 538 (2010).
of “intended loss” in cases involving “Federal health care offenses relating to Government health care programs”.
26 United States v. Mikos, 539 F.3d 706, 714 (7th Cir. 2008).
28 See United States v. Ware, 334 F. App’x 49 (8th Cir. 2009).
30 United States v. Lopez, 222 F.3d 428, 437 (7th Cir. 2000).
31 United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503-06 (4th Cir. 2003).
32 United States v. McClain, 280 F. App’x 425, 430 (5th Cir. 2008).
33 United States v. Al-Shahin, 474 F.3d 941, 950 (7th Cir. 2007).
34 United States v. Alli, 444 F.3d 34, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Edmondson, 349 F.
App’x 511 (11th Cir. 2009).
whether the defendant “recklessly jeopardized” the property in question (credit card limits)).
36 United States v. Wilfong, 475 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007).
37 United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010).
checks); United States v. Dullum, 560 F.3d 133, (3d Cir. 2009).
also United States v. Serino, 309 F. App’x 637 (3d Cir. 2009).
41 United States v. Kushner, 305 F.3d 194, 198 (3d Cir. 2002).
42 United States v. Ravelo, 370 F.3d 266, 273 (2d Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Powell, 320 F.
before she destroyed the account’s ATM card and the bank discovered the fraud).
district court must consider [that evidence]”), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 944 (2011).
44 United States v. Willis, 560 F.3d 1246, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2009).
application, but was approved for $100,000, the appropriate intended loss was the higher value), cert. denied, 130 S.
47 United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
50 United States v. Goss, 549 F.3d 1013, 1018 (5th Cir. 2008).
calculation of loss and the application of upward variances based on loss. In United States v.
51 United States v. Stathakis, 320 F. App’x 74, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2009).
52 Geevers, 226 F.3d at 192.
53 Miller, 316 F.3d at 505.
54 United States v. Baum, 555 F.3d 1129, 1133-35 (10th Cir. 2009).
55 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)); see also United States v. Messervey, 317 F.3d 457, 464 (5th Cir.
2003) (intended loss can include impossible losses); United States v. Dinnall, 313 F. App’x 241 (11th Cir. 2009).
56 United States v. McBride, 362 F.3d 360, 376 (6th Cir. 2004).
57 United States v. Hilgers, 560 F.3d 944, 945-48 (9th Cir. 2009).
determined precisely enough” to apply the guidelines, the sentencing judge in United States v.
circumstances” of the defendant’s case).
61 United States v. Carroll, 691 F. Supp. 2d 672, 676 (W.D. Va. 2010).
62 United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259, 269-70 (4th Cir. 2010).
would have garnered a similar result), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2126 (2010); United States v. Venkataram, 356 F.
defendant sold prescription drugs imported from Mexico in circumvention of FDA regulations.
66 United States v. Vrdolyak, 593 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2010).
67 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n. 3(B)).
68 United States v. Haas, 171 F.3d 259, 268-69 (5th Cir. 1999).
69 United States v. Munoz, 430 F.3d 1357, 1369-71 (11th Cir. 2005).
the defendant’s salaries), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 504 (2010).
1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002)).
72 Munoz, 430 F.3d at 1371 (quoting United States v. Bracciale, 374 F.3d 998, 1004 (11th Cir. 2004)).
73 United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202, 1240 (10th Cir. 2008).
74 United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 778 (9th Cir. 2008).
75 United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 560, 567 (8th Cir. 2009).
States v. Schaefer, 384 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Gordon, 495 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2007).
States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009).
and the lowest of prices at which the card was offered), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2079 (2010).
79 United States v. Sliman, 449 F.3d 797, 802 (7th Cir. 2006).
80 United States v. Flores-Seda, 423 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2005).
81 United States v. Humphrey, 104 F.3d 65, 71 (5th Cir. 1997).
83 United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977, 980-81 (10th Cir. 2008).
84 United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683, 693 (7th Cir. 2008).
sentencing judge relied on] was inaccurate or materially untrue”).
determination that the evidence used by the government was reliable”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3441 (2010).
inadequate); United States v. Hall, 610 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
such stipulated facts waive any challenge by the defendant at sentencing.95 In United States v.
F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2005) (ruling that the court is not bound by the loss figure in the co-defendant’s sentencing).
out a fraudulent loan application, thus showing her intention to abandon the scheme).
92 United States v. Hartstein, 500 F.3d 790, 796-97 (8th Cir. 2007).
93 United States v. Ravelo, 370 F.3d 266, 272-73 (2d Cir. 2004).
611, 614 (6th Cir. 2009).
96 United States v. Elashyi, 554 F.3d 480, 509 (5th Cir. 2008).
(3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Johnson, 270 F. App’x 839 (11th Cir. 2008).
Replacement costs can also be used to make a loss estimate, as in United States v.
production costs are lower than the determined market value. For instance, in United States v.
for the purposes of §2B1.1, but must base its order of restitution on actual losses).
99 United States v. Whitlow, 979 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1992).
100 Id. at 1012 (quoting United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 734-35 (5th Cir. 1991)).
appropriate where the fair market value is impractical to determine).
burned church were accurate measure of loss).
103 United States v. Simpson, 538 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2008).
249 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that face value is accurate value to use when determining loss).
105 Bae, 250 F.3d at 776.
106 United States v. Hardy, 289 F.3d 608, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2002).
107 United States v. Wasz, 450 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2006).
selling at a later date).
110 United States v. Radziszewski, 474 F.3d 480, 487 (7th Cir. 2007).
112 United States v. Siciliano, 601 F. Supp. 2d 623, 633 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
113 United States v. Nathan, 318 F. App’x 273, 275-76 (5th Cir. 2009).
114 United States v. Cedeno, 471 F.3d 1193, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006).
116 United States v. Lindsley, 254 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 2001) (unpublished table decsion).
117 United States v. Shumway, 112 F.3d 1413, 1424-26 (10th Cir. 1997); see also United States v.
government experiment the defendants destroyed), cert. denied sub nom. by Lefey-Rivera v. United States, 130 S. Ct.
118 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)(iv)); see United States v. Abiodun, 536 F.3d 162, 167-68 (2d Cir.
119 United States v. Mei, 315 F.3d 788, 792 (7th Cir. 2003).
120 United States v. Curran, 525 F.3d 74, 80 (1st Cir. 2008).
121 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)(v)).
affected share price, the loss would still meet the guidelines threshold found at sentencing), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.
the value is close to zero because “close to zero is not zero”).
218 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
126 United States v. Kelley, 305 F. App’x 705, 709 (2d Cir.)., cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2756 (2009).
127 United States v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2005).
no opinion regarding the merits of the approaches in Olis and Berger), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 903 (2010).
130 Olis, 429 F.3d at 548.
if a sentencing judge used the civil damages measure in a case controlled by §2B1.1. Id.
135 United States v. Mooney, 425 F.3d 1093, 1100 (8th Cir. 2005).
136 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)(vi)).
137 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(D)(i)).
138 United States v. Morgan, 376 F.3d 1002, 1014 (9th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Dunn, 300 F.
139 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(D)(ii)).
sentencing judge’s failure to do so was reversible error).
141 United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2007).
142 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(i)).
143 Id.; see United States v. Stennis-Williams, 557 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2009).
F.3d 975, 979 (10th Cir. 2000)).
145 United States v. Akin, 62 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995).
146 United States v. Cacho-Bonilla, 404 F.3d 84, 92 (1st Cir. 2005).
147 United States v. Hausmann, 345 F.3d 952, 959-60 (7th Cir. 2003).
court “ha[s] no reason to consider such a reduction” in loss), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3336 (2010).
150 United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222, 225-26 (2d Cir. 2009).
the he should be credited the amounts sent by his employer that actually went to the charities.
151 United States v. Cline, 332 F. App’x 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2009).
152 United States v. Anders, 333 F. App’x 950, 954-55 (6th Cir. 2009).
154 United States v. Holbrook, 499 F.3d 466, 468-70 (5th Cir. 2007).
155 United States v. Warner, 338 F. App’x 245, 247-48 (3d Cir. 2009).
158 United States v. Lange, 592 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir. 2010).
made were not the “fair market value” for the defendant’s services.
whether a defendant intended for the collateral to go back to the victim.163 In United States v.
159 United States v. Pelle, 263 F. App’x 833, 839-40 (11th Cir. 2008).
161 See United States v. Sensmeier, 361 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2004).
162 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(ii)).
163 United States v. McCormac, 309 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2002).
(7th Cir. 1997) (the value of collateral must be deducted from the loan amount to determine loss).
166 Holbrook, 499 F.3d at 466 et seq.
167 United States v. Austin, 479 F.3d 363, 367-70 (5th Cir. 2007).
169 United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109, 1113-16 (10th Cir. 2010).
171 United States v. Severson, 569 F.3d 683, 689-90 (7th Cir. 2009).
174 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(i)).
the offense, loss shall not be less than $100 per unused means”).
176 United States v. Jones, 332 F. App’x 801, 807 (3d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1916 (2010).
177 Alli, 444 F.3d at 38-39.
179 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(ii)).
180 United States v. Tupone, 442 F.3d 145, 154 (3d Cir. 2006).
181 United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367, 380 (5th Cir. 2006).
182 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(iii)).
agency regardless as to the actual fitness or performance of those products.185 In United States v.
183 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(iv)); see also United States v. Craiglow, 432 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir.
Note 3(F)(iv), which disallows credits for the gain of one victim offsetting the loss of another).
184 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(v)).
186 United States v. Millstein, 401 F.3d 53, 74 (2d Cir. 2005).
187 USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(vi)).
189 USSG §2B1.5, comment. (n.2(B)); see also United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284, 290-91 (6th Cir.
position” to assess the evidence.
190 United States v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2005).

References: §2
 §2
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v.

 §2
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 v. 
 v.