Opinion ID: 614602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Intended Loss Was More Than $200,000

Text: Gilchrist argued to the district court that the spreadsheet presented by the government detailing each fraudulent check was not a fair guideline threshold given the overall circumstances of this case. Gilchrist claims there was plain error even though he did not object at trial. Plain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). If these three conditions of the plain error test are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error that (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781. Under the Guidelines, the intended loss of the embezzlement and bank fraud schemes is relevant in determining the offense level. Because the district court determined that the intended loss was over $200,000, the loss amount supported an eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(I) (2000). The district court's determination is supported by substantial evidence because the government submitted a spreadsheet showing check and bates number for all fraudulent checks, as well as the account number into which each fraudulent check was deposited, which demonstrated that Gilchrist deposited nearly 60 fraudulent checks into his various accounts, totaling $269,679.78. Gilchrist concedes that, [i]ncluded in the Guidelines' alternate methods of calculating intended loss is the tallying of deposited fraudulent checks. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 8. Nevertheless he asserts that, while the district court may calculate intended loss in this manner, the court was not obligated to do so. He implies that the district court adopted the recommendations in the PSR without examining the proof. On the contrary, the district court explained its reasoning: I received a copy of the spreadsheet that was used by the investigating authorities to track the checks that were written in connection with the check-kiting issues. And, that, I think, is adequate for me to understand what the intended loss was. So I am going to overrule the objections here, because I do think I have a factual basis to make those findings with sufficient specificity to satisfy the needsthe needs of sentencing. As you know, it's a range that the issues need to fall within. In this case, I'm being requested to sentence at a $200,000-plus range. This shows 280-or 90,000, maybe it's not quite that, but in any event, it's substantially over 200, so I feel like there's enough information, and I'm not ordering any changes [to the Pre-Sentence Report] there.... [W]ith respect to the guidelines, the Defendant has objected to the total intended loss, which generates an eight-point increase, and that objection is overruled. I think the information that's been provided by theto the Probation Officer by the government in its papers is adequate to demonstrate the intended loss. It only needs to be approximate. And for sentencing purposes, it only needs to be over $200,000, which I find it clearly is.... I think the evidence is adequate. One other point Gilchrist raises is that he had a pattern of withdrawing less than the total amount he had deposited with the fraudulent check. Nevertheless, as he conceded, if an intended loss that the defendant was attempting to inflict can be determined, this figure will be used if it is greater than the actual loss. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 8; see also United States v. Robinson, 94 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming the district court's calculation of loss amount as the full value of the counterfeit credit cards and rejecting the defendant's contention that there should be no loss enhancement because there was never any possibility of loss occurring as a result of their sale of counterfeit credit cards to government agents); United States v. Gallagher, 99 F.3d 329, 334 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming the district court's calculation of loss amount as $3,000 where the defendant deposited two fraudulent checks totaling $3,000, but withdrew only $1,000). Because the district court applied the correct legal standard and relied upon probative evidence submitted by the government, we hold it did not err in calculating the intended loss as being over $200,000.