Opinion ID: 172808
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Estimated loss

Text: To arrive at its calculation of $46,126 in estimated loss, the district court accepted the PSR's finding that Griffith was responsible for 60% of $78,876 in questionable expenditures made over the course of her relationship with Norvell. The court explained that the probation officer estimated loss by considering the victim's financial situation, his habits both prior to and after the involvement of the defendant in his life. (R. vol. IV at 10.) The probation officer then determined total funds available during the term of the defendant's involvement with Norvell, with those total funds consisting of income, loans, proceeds from the sale of assets, and credit expenditures. ( Id. at 10-11.) Based on Norvell's lifestyle, expenditures and credit history prior to Griffith's involvement in his affairs and his [financial] recovery since, the PSR deemed it reasonable to conclude that Griffith profited more from [the questionable] expenditures than [did] Norvell. (PSR at 9.) The PSR thus estimated that Griffith benefitted from 60% of those expenditures, while Norvell benefitted from 40%. The district court accepted this estimate, attributing to Griffith as loss 60% of the expenditures at issue. The [district] court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss. U.S.S.G. ง 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(C); see Ary, 518 F.3d at 788. Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district court's method of estimating loss in this case was reasonable. We are likewise satisfied that the Government proved by a preponderance that Griffith should be held accountable for the dissipation of 60% of $46,660 in Norvell's funds. These funds included a $26,600 mortgage loan, $6,000 in proceeds remaining from the sale of one of his properties after Griffith diverted $9,000 of those proceeds, the $7,000 balance Norvell had held in one of his bank accounts in 2001, and $7,060 in lump-sum benefit payments from the VA. We conclude that the Government failed to prove by a preponderance, however, that Griffith caused Norvell loss, as that term is defined in ง 2B1.1, when she misused [his] credit totaling $30,216. (Addendum to PSR at 11.) In short, the Government offered no evidence that this credit card debt was ever paid, and the commentary to the Guidelines makes clear that loss must constitute pecuniary harm. U.S.S.G. ง 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(A)(i)-(iii). While we do not doubt that Griffith's conduct caused harm to Norvell's credit rating, pecuniary harm under the Guidelines does not include ... harm to reputation, or other noneconomic harm. Id., cmt. n. 3(A)(iii). Instead, such harm must be monetary or ... otherwise ... readily measurable in money. Id. Here, the Government did not put on evidence demonstrating that Griffith caused Norvell pecuniary harm, and thus loss, when she misused his credit. Nor did it allege or put on evidence that her conduct caused loss to victims other than Norvell, such as the credit card companies. Consequently, the district court clearly erred when it included in its loss calculation $18,130 attributable to Griffith's misuse of Norvell's credit.