Opinion ID: 795316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charitable Organization

Text: 92 Next, Edelmann argues that the district court erred in applying the two-point enhancement for representing to the victims that she needed money for a charitable organization because her business was a for-profit business and none of the victims were motivated by a humanitarian desire to loan her money. 93 Section 2F1.1(b)(4)(A) of the 2000 Guidelines provides that [i]f the offense involved (A) a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable, educational, religious or political organization, or a government agency ... increase by 2 levels. 94 Here, the government presented evidence that, in seeking bridge loans from Beard and Richardson, Edelmann represented her business as a non-profit, humanitarian project providing legal services to indigent criminal defendants. In addition, she represented to them that she was in the process of gaining primary funding for her project through another source. She promised them that if they loaned her the money, they would receive high returns on their bridge loans when her primary investment source paid out. Also, she submitted a letter to Beard and Richardson from John Contrill stating that she would receive $2,000,000 a week for 40 weeks and that part of this money would be used for humanitarian projects. 95 Based on Edelmann's representations to Beard and Richardson, we hold that the district court committed no error in applying the two-point enhancement.