Opinion ID: 4154151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Variant Sentence

Text: Cox's final claim of procedural error is somewhat puzzling. He argues that the district court improperly imposed a sentence based on an alternative GSR that was commensurate with even if the straw purchasers had timely made some mortgage payments to the lenders. 10 Furthermore, even if Cox was able to put forth some evidence of principal repayments by straw buyers, failing to deduct these amounts from the loss total would likely be harmless error. The district court found actual loss of more than $7.8 million, and the threshold for a twenty-level enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K) was $7 million at the time Cox was sentenced. Thus, to demonstrate prejudicial error, Cox would have to show that more than $800,000 in principal was repaid to lenders. Absent such a showing, he cannot demonstrate he suffered any prejudice. See Foley, 783 F.3d at 25. - 21 - a GSR using only the counts of conviction to assess loss amounts and gross receipts, but which relied on uncharged and acquitted conduct to apply the two-level enhancement for crimes involving ten or more victims. According to Cox, this alternative calculation should have resulted in a base offense level of 31 and a GSR of 108-135 months, instead of a GSR of 135-168 months. In other words, after vigorously contending that the GSR of 262327 months adopted by the court was procedurally unreasonable, Cox alleges that he was actually sentenced under a lower, but still procedurally inadequate, GSR. This purported alternative GSR is not supported by the record. The court did note, in passing, that even if [the court] excluded acquitted conduct . . . [it] would still be appropriate to impose a twenty-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K) for engendering losses greater than $7 million. That single remark hardly demonstrates that the court adopted, implicitly or otherwise, a different Guidelines calculation than the one it did. Indeed, the district court explicitly stated the GSR and offense level it chose: I will adopt the base level of offense of 37 and I will adopt . . . an advisory guideline[s] range [of] 262 to 327 months. And, as we have explained in rejecting Cox's other procedural objections to his sentence, this advisory GSR was properly calculated. Hence, the district court committed no procedural error. - 22 -