Opinion ID: 222924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Calculation of financial loss

Text: The district court's determination of loss is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Bonilla, 579 F.3d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir.2009); United States v. Manoocher Nosrati-Shamloo, 255 F.3d 1290, 1291 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam). And we review the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.2005). The Guidelines do not require a precise determination of loss. United States v. Cabrera, 172 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir.1999). A sentencing court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information. United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881, 893 (11th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, a sentencing judge may not speculate about the existence of a fact that would result in a higher sentence, and the government must support its loss calculation with reliable and specific evidence. Cabrera, 172 F.3d at 1292(internal quotation marks omitted). The Guidelines provide that loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. cmt. n. 3(A). Intended loss is the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense. Id., at cmt. n. 3(A)(ii). The Guidelines acknowledge that a sentencing judge is in a unique position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss and therefore the court's loss determination is entitled to appropriate deference. Id. at cmt. n. 3(C). And the Guidelines allow consideration of the fair market value or replacement cost of the lost property. Id. at cmt. n. 3(C)(i). Barrington contends that the district court erred in calculating financial loss based on the value of changed grades. The only aspect of intended loss Barrington challenges is the loss attributed to courses in which failing grades were changed to passing grades. He argues that there was no evidence that FAMU either lost or gained money as a result of failing grades being changed to passing grades and the district court's calculation of loss was therefore speculative. Barrington's contentions are unpersuasive, and we find no clear error in the district court's loss calculation. The Guidelines acknowledge the difficulty in accurately calculating the amount of loss caused by fraud and therefore require only a reasonable estimate of loss. United States v. Miller, 188 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir.1999)(per curiam); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(C). Upon review of the record, we find that the district court's estimate of loss was reasonable. The district court correctly noted that the Guidelines allow[] the Court to consider the revenue that would have been generated, as well as the fair market value and replacement cost. It found that passing grades were assigned to students who did not earn them, and these grades could not have been obtained by students without retaking the classes. Further, it found that the value of the grade change is the cost for retaking the class, which is the figure that has been used to calculate the loss amount. This finding was based on reliable, specific evidence. The district court calculated intended loss at $ 141,830.42, noting that the loss amount was a conservative and reasonable estimate of the value of the grades. [20] Of that amount, $ 87,579.52 represented lost tuition for changes from out-of-state to in-state student residencies and $ 54,250.90 represented 319 credit hours lost for 119 courses for which grades had been changed from failing to passing or had been awarded for classes never taken or from which students had withdrawn. [21] The loss for each credit hour was determined based on whether the student would have paid in-state or out-of-state tuition. The district court reasonably concluded that a fraudulent grade represented an academic credit which had a calculable monetary value. The value of the credit hours fraudulently received by the students could be accurately calculated, and the district court's calculation of loss based on the value of those credit hours was a reasonable estimate based on the evidence. Testimony established that grades were changed to enhance students' GPAs and qualify them for the next step in their respective academic progressions, including graduate school. Estimating intended loss for those credit hours was hardly speculative, since the students would have had to retake the failed course and pay tuition for the credit hours in order to accomplish their academic goals. [22] In sum, we find that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and its determination of intended loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 was a correct application of the Guidelines.