Opinion ID: 204040
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Loss Calculation Enhancement

Text: Some of the Top Four Defendants contend that the district court erred in assessing against each of the defendants an 18-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines based on a loss calculation of between $2,500,000 and $7,000,000. Under the advisory guidelines regime, the district court can use the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine whether an enhancement applies. United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 89 (1st Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Holliday, 457 F.3d 121, 130 (1st Cir.2006)). Accordingly, we review the district court's factbound determinations for purposes of sentencing for clear error. Id. (citing United States v. Ventura, 353 F.3d 84, 89 (1st Cir.2003)). As background, the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) (2005), and applied an 18-level enhancement for each defendant under Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), since the loss amount the court calculated (approximately $5.5 million, with $1.1 million added to Lugo and Román for misapplying additional funds) was between $2.5 million and $7.5 million. Application Note 3(E)(I) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) provides an offset for [t]he money returned, and the fair market value of the property returned and the services rendered, by the defendant or other persons acting jointly with the defendant, to the victim before the offense was detected. We review the district court's determination for clear error. On appeal, the Top Four Defendants all challenge the district court's loss calculation on two grounds: (1) none of them could have foreseen the amounts that each of the other defendants would receive, such that each defendant's loss amount should, at the most, be the amount he or she individually received; see United States v. Codarcea, 505 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir.2007) (under Section 2B1.1, a conspirator will be held accountable for losses within the scope of a conspiracy that would have been foreseeable by a reasonable person in [the conspirator's] shoes); and (2) the court should have credited them for services rendered. The first ground fails. The Top Four Defendants' extensive knowledge and control of the embezzlement scheme as a whole made the total amount foreseeable. As to the second ground, the Top Four Defendants premise their argument on the fact that their scheme was detected in 2004, but the evidence shows that the date of detection was as early as 2000, when the OIC audited the Health Plan. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(E)(I) (defining time of detection as the earlier of (I) the time of the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency). By that time, the evidence showed that the AAA paid $1.2 million pursuant to the labor license. Assuming the same amount for services rendered to the Plan, it would not lower the total amount embezzled below the $2.5 million threshold for the enhancement. Thus, we find no error.