Opinion ID: 4123854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calculation Methodology

Text: Pielsticker challenges the district court’s loss-calculation methodology associated with the bank-fraud conspiracy, arguing that the district court failed to “articulate any methodology whatsoever.” Appellant Opening Br. at 50. “Loss” under the guidelines is the greater of intended or actual loss. USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(A). Actual loss is “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.” Id., cmt. n.3(A)(i). And pecuniary harm is harm that is monetary or readily measureable in money. Id., cmt. n.3(A)(iii). In calculating loss, the district court “need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss . . . . [and its] loss determination is entitled to appropriate deference.” Id., cmt. n.3(c). Pielsticker argues that the district court erred by failing to state its methodology. But the district court first found that Arrow’s inflated invoices totaled $20,922,058.25, and then subtracted Recourse Accounts and credits to arrive at the Bank’s total loss of $11,464,560.08. From this, we have no problem identifying the district court’s methodology in calculating actual loss. And this methodology met § 2B1.1’s direction to reduce loss by “the money returned.” USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(E)(i). Thus, we find that Pielsticker has failed to demonstrate that the district court employed an improper loss-calculation methodology. 10