Opinion ID: 196212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overstated Loss and Multiple Loss Causation

Text: 15 On appeal, Bennett broaches for the first time the alternative arguments that the 15-month downward departure should be upheld either because the $837,000 total loss recalculation significantly overstates the seriousness of his conduct, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, n. 7(b) (1994), or on the ground of multiple loss causation. See, e.g., United States v. Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 405 (1st Cir.1995) (acknowledging that a downward departure may be warranted in the few instances where ... a misrepresentation ... is not the sole cause of the loss....) (citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, n. 11 (1987)); see also United States v. Gregorio, 956 F.2d 341, 345 (1st Cir.1992). 16 Although Bennett contends that the total loss is overstated as a consequence of an economic downturn in the regional economy, insofar as the record on appeal permits assessment it undermines Bennett's claim. The valuation of the property Bennett agreed to surrender under the terms of the civil suit settlement was disputed at the initial sentencing; viz., the government contending for $431,024.16, Bennett $684,000. At that time, Bennett maintained that a slumping economy had reduced the value of the settlement after the banks took title to the improved properties and other assets tendered by Bennett. The district court accordingly rejected the lower valuation propounded by the government, and found the settlement worth at least $660,000. Subsequently, at resentencing, it placed the value of Bennett's extraordinary act at $694,000. 17 Thus, not only did Bennett not proffer record evidence of a sudden, unforeseen downturn in the regional economy that significantly lowered the value of the properties financed with his illegal borrowings, but throughout both prior sentencing proceedings he maintained that market factors had not affected these properties. We therefore hold both that the multiple loss causation claim has not been preserved, see United States v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir.1991) ([I]n connection with sentencing as in other contexts ... arguments not seasonably addressed to the trial court may not be raised for the first time in an appellate venue.), and that it is unsupported--indeed contradicted--by the record. III