Opinion ID: 2983027
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credit Against Loss

Text: Gott claims that the government’s loss exhibit failed to take into consideration amounts that the lenders recovered in foreclosure sales or from selling the mortgages. He also argues that the district court’s per acre valuation of the donated property failed to consider that each parcel sold for a different price and some parcels had unique characteristics that made them worth more than others. We review Gott’s claims only for plain error because he failed to raise them below. United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir. 1998). “To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) that an error occurred in the district court; (2) that the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear; (3) that the error affected defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) that this 18 Nos. 14-5721/5722, United States v. Dobson, et al. adverse impact seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Schulte, 264 F.3d 656, 660 (6th Cir. 2001). Gott cannot establish any error, let alone plain error. Although he claims that the district court failed to apply credits against the loss, Gott does not identify any particular sale or amount that the court should have applied to reduce the loss. In contrast, Agent Ruffin testified that the loss amounts that the lenders furnished for the summary exhibit included “credits against loss.” Gott failed to challenge this testimony. Furthermore, Gott does not refute Agent Ruffin’s testimony that there was no conceivable scenario where the loss would be reduced to under $7 million. Gott also fails to support his assertion that the district court erred in valuing the donated land. The district court accepted the testimony of Gott’s own witness and valued the donated property at $3,200 per acre. Gott fails to cite any persuasive basis to conclude that the district court’s valuation was erroneous, nor does he cite any evidence supporting his claim that the district court improperly valued the property as total acreage rather than on the basis of individual parcels.