Opinion ID: 197990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Loss Calculation for Sentencing

Text: 21 Although the two counts on which Graham was convicted involved no loss to the victim, she was sentenced based on related, acquitted conduct after the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that she had participated in a conspiracy that resulted in a loss of $1.46 million to the victim. This loss resulted in a total offense level of 17 which imposes a sentencing range of 24-30 months. After Graham pointed out that the loss attributed to her was substantially higher than the loss attributed to other similarly situated defendants who had cooperated with the government, the government recommended a downward departure for Graham on the ground that the loss figure overstated her culpability. The district court agreed and granted Graham a two-level downward departure resulting in a sentence of 18 months on each count to be served concurrently. 22 Graham contends that the disparity in loss calculations violated her right to due process and equal protection because it was the result of sentencing factor manipulation. In response to the district court's questioning on this issue, the government explained that any disparity was the result of early guilty pleas and cooperation agreements by other defendants. 2 The district court accepted this explanation and Graham did not specifically object to this ruling or ask for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. We find no plain error in the district court's decision. 23 Even assuming that Graham could prove that the government improperly manipulated her loss calculation, the district court's downward departure remedied her grievance. [W]here government agents have improperly enlarged the scope or scale of the crime, the sentencing court 'has ample power to deal with the situation ... by departing from the [guideline sentencing range].'  U.S. v. Montoya, 62 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1995) (quoting U.S. v. Connell, 960 F.2d 191, 196 (1st Cir.1992)). To the extent that Graham's appeal suggests that the departure was inadequate, absent an error of law this court has no jurisdiction to consider the extent of a permitted departure. U.S. v. Webster, 54 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1995). We find no such error of law.