Opinion ID: 593259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uncharged and Dismissed Counts

Text: 24 Galliano argues the district court erred by including in its calculation losses of $74,254.48 and $810.82 attributable to counts the government agreed not to prosecute, or dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. 25 Section 1B1.3 required the court to determine the amount of loss on the basis of all such acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) (June 1988); accord United States v. Restrepo, 903 F.2d 648, 651-53, modified, 946 F.2d 654 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc) (the sentencing court must consider relevant conduct in making adjustments to the base offense level for specific offense characteristics, such as the amount of monetary loss). This is so even though Galliano was not charged with the relevant conduct. Id. 26 Because there is no dispute that the $74,254.48 loss arose out of a common scheme, the district court properly included this sum in calculating the total loss Galliano attempted to inflict. 27 With regard to the $810.82 loss attributable to the dismissed counts, the district court may or may not have erred by including this sum in its loss calculation. We do not decide this question because we don't have to. The error, if any, was harmless because the amount of the calculated loss exceeds $200,000 even without including the $810.82. Thus, Galliano's base offense level was properly increased by 7 levels. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(H) (June 1988) (losses exceeding $200,000 receive an increase of 7 levels). Cf. Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1121, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (error in misapplying the guidelines is harmless if the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor). 28