Opinion ID: 196212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bennett I

Text: 8 On appeal in Bennett I we held that the district court had erred in excluding from the total loss calculation under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1(b)(1), as relevant conduct, the losses resulting from fraudulent borrowings not charged in the indictment, Bennett I, 37 F.3d at 694, and in crediting Bennett with at least $660,000 for the civil suit settlement entered into after his crimes had been discovered. Id. at 695 ( '[T]he loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets pledged to secure the loan.' ) (citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, n. 7(b)). 2 Finally, Bennett I held that the two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was clear error, since Bennett had neither demonstrated genuine contrition nor made voluntary restitution by settling the civil suit, nor pled guilty to the charges in the indictment, but instead denied the essential factual elements of the charges throughout trial and at sentencing by maintaining that he had never intended to defraud the banks. See id. at 696-98. We therefore vacated the first sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 700.