Opinion ID: 223506
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliance on Pre-2005 Events

Text: Appellant first argues that the district court erred by relying upon events that transpired outside the relevant time period. In particular, appellant asserts that his fraudulent faxes in 2003 while he was working at RFA fall outside the relevant period of the offense for which he was convicted  i.e., January through August 2005  and the district court should therefore not have relied upon them in determining the restitution amount. We disagree. Because appellant did not raise this argument as an objection at sentencing, we review it only for plain error. See United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 90 n. 1 (2d Cir.1994). The district court considered appellant's 2003 faxes only to show knowledge of the consequences of his acts during the period of his criminal activity. The 2003 faxes established that appellant had knowledge of the severity of potential investor losses at stake in the Bayou fraud during the relevant time period in 2005. As the court explained at sentencing, [the investors' losses were] also foreseeable to him because he's the person that is sending out confirmations with dollar figures... and waiting to see if people confirmed that they received these confirmations on their investment. Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the district court's use of the 2003 faxes at sentencing.