Opinion ID: 77852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appeal by the Government

Text: The government argues that the district court erred when it calculated the loss amount attributable to Foley, calculated the number of victims, and declined to make a finding about obstruction of justice. If these arguments are meritorious, we must consider whether Foley can establish that the errors were harmless. We discuss each argument in turn.
The government argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines when it calculated the amount of loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), by deferring to the $2,000,000 forfeiture verdict returned by the jury. The government argues that the court was required to make an independent finding about loss, which the government contends exceeded $7,000,000. We agree. Our decision in United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.2006), resolves this issue. We explained in Hamaker that, in calculating the amount of loss, the Guidelines require a district court to take into account not merely the charged conduct, but rather all `relevant conduct,' in calculating a defendant's offense level. Id. at 1336. The district court in Hamaker rested its finding on the forfeiture verdict, as occurred in this appeal. We explained that the district court in Hamaker erred in three respects. First, forfeiture and loss require distinct calculations and need not be calculated identically, id. at 1337, even though they are subject to the same burden of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence, id. at 1337 & n. 21. Because `[f]orfeiture is a penalty imposed on a criminal independent of any loss to the crime victim,' the amount of the jury's forfeiture verdict is not necessarily the correct measure of loss for sentencing purposes, and the procedures for arriving at a forfeiture amount and calculating loss are distinct. Id. (quoting United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711, 715 (4th Cir.2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Second, the district court erroneously speculated that the forfeiture verdict necessarily meant that the jury had found the defendant not culpable for certain charged acts. See id. Third, the district court abdicated its responsibility to make independent findings establishing the factual basis for its Guidelines calculations. Id. at 1338 (emphasis omitted). Our decision in Hamaker compels the conclusion that the district court erred. The district court adopted the forfeiture verdict of the jury as the amount of loss for the purposes of the Guidelines calculation and explained only that the court found it very difficult . . . to increase the amount of loss above the amount that the jury returned. The court failed to take into account all relevant conduct or explain why certain conduct was not relevant, failed to understand the difference between forfeiture and loss, and abdicated its responsibility to make independent findings under the Guidelines.
The government argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines when it calculated the number of victims. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2). For its finding of the number of victims, the district court adopted the number of individuals who had responded to a letter sent about restitution by the probation office, which was 158. Foley argued that the court should base its calculation on the number of victims who testified at trial. The government urged the court to use a number greater than 250, because Global had nearly 400 investors and the vast majority of them had been assigned to shared ATMs. We agree with the government that the district court erred. The district court erred when it adopted the number of responses received by the probation office as the number of victims for sentencing purposes. As explained earlier, the district court did not make an independent finding on the amount of loss, and the number of victims is defined in relation to the loss calculation. A victim is any person who sustained any part of the actual loss calculated under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 1. The district court accepted the 158 responses to the probation office letter as a benchmark for calculating the number of victims, but the number of people who responded to the letter from the probation office about restitution did not establish how many people sustained the loss attributable to Foley. The district court also recognized that there were individuals the probation office had not yet located. The district court must make independent findings to support its calculation of loss. See Hamaker, 455 F.3d at 1338. The district court did not attempt to connect the number of victims to the loss calculation that it made, and it did not establish[] the factual basis for its Guidelines calculations. Id. 3. The District Court Erred When It Declined to Make a Finding About the Obstruction of Justice Enhancement. The government argues that the district court erred when it declined to make a finding about the obstruction of justice enhancement. The district court purported to make a finding when it adopted the portion of the presentence investigation report in which the probation officer stated that he would defer to the district court on this issue. We again agree with the government that the district court erred. The district court abdicated its duty to rule on the obstruction of justice enhancement. The government sought the obstruction enhancement based at least in part on Foley's alleged perjury at trial and his attempt to conceal his assets from the FBI investigation. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 1116, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993). The presentence investigation report acknowledged that there was an unresolved question about the application of this enhancement, and the parties argued about it at the sentencing hearing. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state that a sentencing court mustfor any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matterrule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B). The record reflects that when it declined to apply the enhancement, the district court said it adopted a part of the presentence report, but that report deferred to the judgment of the district court. This abdication was error.