Opinion ID: 2789095
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Calculation of Losses from Loans

Text: Aaron also argues that the district court erred by using the amount realized from deficiency sales to calculate the losses from the loans. We conclude that the district court correctly calculated the losses by taking the principal amount of the loan and subtracting any credits from the subsequent sale of the property. See United States v. Morris, 744 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 2014). Similarly, the district court did not err by considering the losses submitted by successor lenders who had purchased the loans. The losses to those lenders are considered reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm because the lenders purchased the loans “without an awareness of [their] true value due to . . . fraud.” United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. –, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (2014)). Although Yeung examined proximate cause in the context of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, we see no reason why its reasoning would not apply to determine losses in the sentencing context.