Opinion ID: 78321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Trial and Sentencing

Text: After trial, but before sentencing, the government offered uncontested evidence that Defendant had filed three additional fraudulent Katrina claims. After reviewing the evidence, Defendant's probation officer prepared a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) based on Defendant's filing twenty fraudulent claims. For sentencing purposes, the PSI required a calculation of the greater of the actual or intended loss Defendant caused. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), n.3(A) (court should use the greater of actual loss or intended loss when calculating sentence enhancement). Although FEMA suffered actual losses of $79,607.45, the probation officer calculated intended loss based on the maximum aid available for each fraudulent claim filed: $26,200. The PSI listed Defendant's intended loss as $471,600, [6] resulting in a fourteen-level sentence enhancement. At sentencing, the government argued that the district court should adopt the PSI's recommended sentence enhancement for intended loss because Defendant consistently demonstrated an intent to obtain the most money FEMA would provide. Although some of Defendant's applications were not yet pursued beyond the $4,358 in automatic FEMA funds, the government contended that Defendant took affirmative steps to obtain a maximum award whenever possible. [7] Therefore, the government argued, Defendant should be sentenced based on the maximum per-application loss instead of on the amount of aid she applied for or received from each FEMA application. To support an intended-loss calculation of $26,200 per application, the government presented evidence of Defendant repeatedly seeking more than the $4,358 FEMA automatically disbursed to hurricane victims. For example, on 7 September 2005, Defendant (through Litasha Washington) (Washington) requested money for a breathing machinea request beyond the scope of automatic rental assistance. As part of her conspiracy with Washington, Defendant submitted phony leases with Louisiana addresses to secure additional rental assistance. Together, Washington and Defendant sought $18,474.05 from a single FEMA application: $14,116.05 beyond the emergency funds automatically disbursed to victims. On 11 September 2005, Defendant (through Valarie Howard) sought $18,620.09 in federal funds: $14,262.09 beyond FEMA's automatic payment. Two days later, in a separate request, Defendant personally applied for another $8,983.88. On 10 January 2006, Defendant requested rental assistance beyond FEMA's automatic aid. Remarkably, on 26 June 2006months after she was first indicted for the false-claims schemeDefendant again took steps to obtain funds for extra personal-property and rental assistance. The government argued that although Defendant collected only $2,000 on seven of her fraudulent applications, Defendant's acts, when viewed together, supported a reasonable inference that she intended to obtain more than the $4,358 automatically available for each application. Defendant objected to the government's intended-loss calculation. The district court nevertheless applied the PSI's recommended fourteen-level enhancement for intended loss. It also adopted the PSI's calculation of Defendant's offense level as 28, her criminal history as category II, and her guideline range as 87 to 108 months. The court sentenced Defendant to the high end of the guideline range, 108 months, to be served consecutive to a 34-year mandatory imprisonment term, [8] for a total sentence of 516 months (43 years). The district court denied Defendant's Motion for Variance, which was based upon Defendant's claim of diminished capacity.