Opinion ID: 56466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Date of Entry into the Conspiracy

Text: Adetona also argues that he should not be held accountable for losses caused by his co-conspirators prior to the date that he joined the conspiracy. The only statement made to the district court regarding this argument was one phrase in the January 30th letter objecting to the PSI. Adetona’s attorney stated that “it was not until early 2004[] that law enforcement became aware of Mr. Adetoda’s (sic) involvement.” No further statements were made as to the date Adetona did join the conspiracy nor to the legal effect that joining the conspiracy at a later date would have on his sentence. For the first time on appeal, Adetona argues that the government was required to prove the exact date on which he joined that conspiracy in order to deduce what acts occurring after that time were reasonably foreseeable to him. We review arguments raised for the first time on appeal under a plain error 10 standard. United States v. Rahim, 431 F.3d 753, 756 (11th Cir. 2005). In order for an error to be plain, it must be obvious or clear under current law. United States v. Gerrow, 232 F.3d 831, 835 (11th Cir. 2000). The amount of loss need only be a reasonable estimate. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) comment. (n. 3(C)) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) and (f)). Additionally, the guidelines specify that the amount of loss is defined as the greater of the actual or intended loss. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) comment. (n. 3(A)). “Intended loss [] means the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense.” Id. Although a “‘district court must not speculate concerning the existence of a fact which would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines,’ its reasonable estimate of the intended loss will be upheld on appeal.” United States v. Dominguez, 109 F.3d 675, 676 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 993 F.2d 214, 218 (11th Cir. 1993)) (citation omitted). Because the sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to assess the evidence and estimate loss, that estimate is entitled to appropriate deference. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 comment. (n. 3(C)). The government bears the burden of proving the amount of loss by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cover, 199 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2000). This burden can only be satisfied with “reliable and specific evidence.” 11 United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882, 890 (11th Cir. 1997). Given these parameters, the district court did not plainly err by estimating that the amount of loss attributable to Adetona encompassed the entire amount of loss attributable to the conspiracy. It is true that defendants shall not be held accountable for the conduct of others prior to joining the conspiracy. United States v. Wise, 129 F.3d 1209, 1213 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n. 2). In this case, however, there is no evidence as to when the defendant joined the conspiracy. The indictment does indicate that Adetona was actively involved within six months of Adeniran’s first deposit of fraudulent checks. Adetona has not made any statements indicating that he was not involved in the conspiracy from the beginning. He stated only that law enforcement “was not aware” of his involvement until 2003 or 2004. Although the government bears the burden of using specific and reliable evidence to prove the amount of loss, the district court has to make a reasonable estimate based on the information available to it. See United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881, 893 (11th Cir. 2005). Where the defendant presents no evidence to contradict the reasonable inference from the government’s evidence on amount of loss, the district court does not err by relying on the evidence presented by the government. See United States v. Nasroti-Shamloo, 255 12 F.3d 1290, 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court did not err in relying on the circumstantial evidence which indicated that the defendant intended to utilize all of the credit available on fraudulently obtained credit cards where the defendant failed to present countervailing evidence). In assigning the full amount of loss to Adetona, the district court relied on specific and reliable evidence: Adetona’s position as right-hand man to Adeniran, his knowledge of the whole fraudulent scheme, and his direction of activities during Adeniran’s trips to Nigeria. Taking all of this together, there is more than mere speculation that Adetona was a member of the conspiracy from its inception and can properly be held accountable for the full amount of loss caused by it. This conclusion was a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss attributable to Adetona.