Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Boris TOMICIC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-22
Citations: 543 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 12-2653-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Boris TOMICIC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Present GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 86–88

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Boris TOMICIC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-2653-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 22, 2013.
Kenneth Rosenthal, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman LLP, New Haven, CT, for Appellant.
Eric J. Glover, Assistant United States Attorney (David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,
Robert Spector, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief) New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
Present GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the caption as above.
The Honorable Edward Korman, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Boris Tomicic appeals from the amended judgment entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut sentencing him principally to 18 months' imprisonment and ordering him to pay restitution of $90,000 after a jury convicted him of one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1843. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.
Tomicic argues that the government presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction, arguing that the record lacks any evidence demonstrating he knowingly participated in fraud. A plaintiff seeking to overturn a conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence bears "a very heavy burden." United States v. Crowley, 318 F.3d 401, 407 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the verdict." Id. (citation omitted). The jury verdict must be upheld if "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). Tomicic cannot satisfy his burden. The evidence at trial established that Tomicic was aware that there was a dispute between the developer on the project he worked on and the insurance carrier. The evidence also established that Tomicic submitted what he knew to be falsified, backdated competing bids to the developer. A rational trier of fact could find Tomicic knew the falsified bids would be submitted to the developer's insurer.
Moreover, there was a sufficient basis for the district court to calculate a loss amount and restitution amount of $90,000. "In calculating loss amount, the obligation of the district court is to make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information." United States v. Turk, 626 F.3d 743, 748 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Tomicic argues that in the absence of any evidence demonstrating Chubb's loss, it was unreasonable for the district court to find Chubb suffered a loss of $90,000, which increased his offense level to 15, yielding a Guidelines range of 18 to 24 months. The record contained sufficient evidence to support finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Chubb suffered a loss of $90,000, which represents the difference between what Chubb paid based, in part, on the falsified bids ($178 per ton) and the amount of the actual disposal price ($127.50 per ton) with a 15 percent markup. For the same reasons, we find no error with the restitution award.
We have examined the remainder of Tomicic's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.