Opinion ID: 4511542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gross Receipts Under Section 2B1.1(b)(16)(A)

Text: Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by applying the two-level enhancement from Guidelines section 2B1.1(b)(16)(A), which applies if the “the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more 1“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). 3 Case: 18-40773 Document: 00515325590 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 No. 18-40773 financial institutions as a result of the offense,” because the court only ordered $711,088.08 in restitution to the Bank. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) (U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N 2016). 2 Rodriguez objected in the district court to the application of the section 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) enhancement on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that Rodriguez obtained more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts. We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the enhancement for clear error. See Johnson, 619 F.3d at 472. The PSR applied the enhancement after determining that Rodriguez “appropriated a combined total of approximately $1,424,052.98 from numerous [Bank] account holders” and that her gross receipts from the Bank equaled that amount. The district court adopted the PSR’s finding as “well supported by the record.” Rodriguez failed to offer any rebuttal evidence, so the district court was free to adopt the PSR’s factual finding of the amount of the gross receipts without further inquiry. See United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). Rodriguez also implicitly contends that the district court applied the wrong interpretation of “gross receipts” as used in section 2B1.1(b)(16)(A). Rodriguez did not raise this issue below, so we review it for plain error. See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 2008). We conclude that there is no error at all. The Guidelines application notes define the phrase “[g]ross receipts from the offense” as “all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, which is obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.12(B). Rodriguez contends that the gross receipts derived from the Bank for purposes of the section 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) enhancement should only be either the Bank’s portion of the total loss as 2 The Guidelines provisions relevant to this issue are identical in the 2013 and 2016 editions. 4 Case: 18-40773 Document: 00515325590 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 No. 18-40773 determined under section 2B1.1(b)(1) or the amount of restitution owed to the Bank. The total loss calculated under section 2B1.1(b)(1), however, is subject to various exclusions, credits, and special rules. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3. Similarly, while restitution is based on “the full amount of the victim’s loss,” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1(a)(1), that term has been interpreted to mean net, not gross, loss. See United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 107–08 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a victim should not receive more in restitution than is required to make him whole and that, in a commercial setting, a victim is entitled only to net lost profits). On the other hand, “gross” is “routinely defined as an overall total exclusive of deductions,” meaning that gross receipts “consist of the entire amount [received], less nothing.” United States v. Gharbi, 510 F.3d 550, 555 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (concluding that gross receipts include all fraudulently obtained funds, even the portion used to pay legitimate debts). The district court thus did not err in interpreting “gross receipts from one or more financial institutions” to mean the total amount of the funds that Rodriguez misappropriated from the Bank before any setoffs or reductions. 3 Neither did the district court err in accepting the amount of those gross receipts as calculated in the PSR.