Opinion ID: 172808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The district court's calculation of loss

Text: The district court calculated loss based on Griffith's conduct underlying the offense of conviction as well as her relevant conduct in schem[ing] ... to defraud Mr. Norvell of his assets and income before she became his VA fiduciary. (R. vol. IV at 7.) At sentencing, the court explained that all acts committed by the defendant were part of the same course of conduct and a common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, and that those acts clearly constitute law violations involving crimes [such] as larceny, embezzlement, [and] unauthorized use of access devices. ( Id. at 6.) Further, the acts determined to be relevant conduct are acts of fraud or deceit, criminal conduct for which [U.S.S.G. ง] 3D1.2(d) would require grouping. ( Id. ) The court then determined that Griffith's fraudulent course of conduct caused loss of $83,739, as follows: 1. $5,118.01 in direct loss conceded by Griffith, consisting of $695 used to pay for Griffith's bankruptcy filing; $100 used to pay off one of Griffith's personal loans; $160 in checks to Griffith's mother, Betty Spencer; $88.01 used to pay for women's clothing; $2,000 used as a down payment on a house in Griffith's name; and $2,075 in checks made payable to Griffith and deposited in her personal account. 2. $32,495 in direct loss not conceded by Griffith, consisting of $9,495 lost to Norvell when Griffith made numerous unauthorized cash withdrawals in the amount of $15,985, occasionally noting on checks that the cash would be used to pay bills. Griffith then failed to pay bills totaling $9,495; $7,000 lost to Norvell when Griffith induced him to sell a home he owned, resulting in issuance of a $15,000 proceeds check to Norvell and his son Ross; Griffith intercepted the check, forged Ross Norvell's name, and deposited the money into one of Norvell's accounts before causing a $9,000 cashier's check to be made payable to her from that account; [8] and $16,000 lost to Norvell when he traded in his 1939 Hudson, valued at $6,000, as a down payment on his purchase of a 2002 Pontiac, valued at $16,000, for Griffith's exclusive use, and financed the remainder of the $16,000 purchase price with a $10,000 installment loan. Griffith later failed to make payments on that loan, leading to the vehicle's repossession. 3. Estimated loss of $46,126, consisting of 60% of $76,876 in the following questionable expenditures, from which Griffith benefitted more than did Norvell: $15,960 (60% of $26,600) lost to Norvell when Griffith induced him to obtain a $26,600 mortgage loan and then dissipat[ed] this ... asset (Addendum to PSR at 9-10); $12,036 (60% of $20,060) lost to Norvell when Griffith dissipated the $6,000 balance of the $15,000 proceeds of the sale of the home referenced above, the $7,000 balance that had been in one of Norvell's accounts in 2001, and $7,060 in lump-sum VA payments; and $18,130 (60% of $30,216) lost to Norvell when Griffith misused his credit to accumulate debts of $30,216. Based on this loss calculation, and pursuant to Guideline ง 2B1.1(b)(1)(E), the district court increased Griffith's offense level by eight, because the loss was more than $70,000 but less than $120,000. The district court also stated, on the record, that even if it had found the loss to be less than $70,000, it would have imposed the same sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment. [9]