Opinion ID: 2972499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the sentencing court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. See United States v. Wiant, 314 F.3d 826, 828 (6th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 970 (2003). The determination of what types of loss can constitute the loss attributable to Tate’s offense for purposes of his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) is a question of law subject to de novo review. See United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 489 (6th Cir. 1998).2 2 When Tate filed this appeal, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) provided: “Upon review of the record, the court of appeals shall determine whether the sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law; [or] (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines....” In Booker, however, the Supreme Court excised section 3742(e) from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”). See United States v. Johnson, 403 F.3d 813, 816 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 738, 765). “Having severed and excised the SRA’s standards governing review of sentences, the Supreme Court replaced them with review for unreasonableness. United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765). -4- We uphold restitution awards unless the district court abused its discretion. See United States v. Hart, 70 F.3d 854, 862 (6th Cir. 1995). We uphold the district court’s finding as to the amount of restitution unless it is “outside the universe of acceptable computations.” United States v. Fleming, 128 F.3d 285, 287 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). III. ANALYSIS: LOSS FOR PURPOSES OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
United States Sentencing Guideline § 2B1.1 governs “Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments” other than federal securities. Subsection 2B1.1(b)(1) increases the offense level based on the amount of loss attributable to the offense, as follows: Loss (apply the greatest) Increase in Level (A) $5,000 or less no increase (B) More than $5,000 add 2 (C) More than $10,000 add 4 (D) More than $30,000 add 6 .... The Commentary to section 2B1.1 further provides, in pertinent part:3 “Therefore, when a defendant challenges a district court’s sentencing determination, we are instructed to determine ‘whether [the] sentence is unreasonable.’” Webb, 403 F.3d at 383 (citing Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 766). 3 We have previously held that because the Sentencing Commission’s Commentary constitutes an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations, “it is binding on the federal courts unless it is unconstitutional, violates the terms of a federal statute, or is plainly inconsistent with the terms of the Guideline being interpreted.” United States v. Lucas, 99 F.3d 1290, 1294 (6th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Although the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, we still look to the Commentary for guidance. See United States v. Yagar, 404 F.3d 967, 972 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bivens, Nos. 03-6667 and 04-5044, __ Fed. Appx. __, __, 2005 WL 820705, at  (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2005) (standard for determining whether defendant was a minor participant in conspiracy); United States v. Kavo, No. 04-1194, __ Fed. Appx. __, __, -5- Loss Under Subsection (b)(1)    (A) General Rule – Subject to the exclusions in subdivision (D) [interest, late fees, cost of investigation and prosecution], loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss. (i) Actual Loss – “Actual loss” means the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense. (ii) Intended Loss – “Intended loss” (I) means the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense; and (II) includes intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur (e.g., as in a government sting operation, or an insurance fraud in which the claim exceeded the insured value).