Opinion ID: 704816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Verdugo's Responsibility for the Total Loss

Text: 36 The Presentence Report states that the conspiracy commenced in 1986, that Verdugo entered the conspiracy in 1988, and that it continued until at least January 1991. The Report does not indicate when, or if, Verdugo left the conspiracy, although it does identify only two overt acts in which he was involved, both occurring in August 1988. 37 As noted above, the district court concluded that Verdugo was involved ... to the amount of 2.6 million. The court continued: I know that the Circuit is wrestling with ways of splitting out co-conspirators in terms of total amount of responsibility. But it appears to be of no help in this case. 38 Verdugo argues on appeal that the district court in fact should have split out his share of responsibility for the total loss incurred in this case and that it should have given him a sentence more appropriate to his limited role. Specifically, Verdugo argues that he cannot be held responsible for the conspiracy before he joined it or after he left it, and that the district court therefore must make a specific finding ... as to the amount of loss ascribable to [him]. 39 Verdugo cannot succeed on this argument. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), the amount of loss attributable to a conspiracy defendant includes the loss caused by his own acts and the loss stemming from acts of others that were reasonably foreseeable by him and were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Petty, 992 F.2d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1993). Although losses incurred before Verdugo joined the conspiracy would not be attributable to him, see id. at 891, the record reflects that the $2.6 million figure is derived from conduct occurring after 1988, which postdates Verdugo's entrance into the conspiracy. 40 Although Verdugo's direct involvement may have ceased in 1988, the district court's statement, I'm also going to accept the fact that you were involved in this ... to the amount of $2.6 million, indicated that it had made a finding that Verdugo could have reasonably foreseen that his co-conspirators would engage in the activities that led to the post-1988 losses. Because this finding was not clearly erroneous, the district court was entitled to consider the full $2.6 million loss in sentencing Verdugo.