Opinion ID: 653732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Chukwura's relevant conduct should include the

Text: 28 amount of funds he fraudulently deposited but did 29 not withdraw from the bank accounts. 30 Chukwura contends that the district court erred when it did not reduce his offense level for criminal acts that he did not complete because, under the Sentencing Guidelines, uncompleted acts are merely attempts. Chukwura argues that some or all of the money, totaling $82,393.50, remained in five of the fraudulent accounts. Because he did not withdraw those funds, he argues, he never completed the crime. Chukwura maintains that because these amounts only constituted attempts, the court should have reduced the total of $255,712, by $82,393.50 when determining the scope of his relevant conduct. Applying this logic, Chukwura argues that he should have received a seven-level increase in his offense level, for losses greater than $120,000, rather than an eight-level increase for losses greater than $200,000. 31 In considering Chukwura's relevant conduct, the district court determined that the total amount of uncollected funds in the various bank accounts totaled $255,712. The court added the amounts of the fraudulent checks Chukwura deposited to arrive at this figure, the total amount of the intended losses. Chukwura does not contest that he procured $255,712. Because the court based its finding on reasonably reliable evidence, we reject Chukwura's argument. 32 In doing so, we find guidance in the guidelines commentary which provides that loss amounts in a fraud case will be the same as in a theft case. For example, if the fraud consisted of selling or attempting to sell $40,000 in worthless securities, or representing that a forged check for $40,000 was genuine, the loss would be $40,000. Sec. 2F1.1 application note 7 (emphasis added). Because Chukwura represented the checks as genuine, the sentencing court calculated the total loss as the aggregate amount of the fraudulent checks. 33 We review the sentencing court's findings of fact for clear error, giving significant deference to its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to those facts. United States v. Griffin, 945 F.2d 378, 380-81 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1958, 118 L.Ed.2d 561 (1992). Because the facts developed at sentencing and the commentary to U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1 support the court's use of the deposited amounts to determine Chukwura's relevant conduct, we do not disturb that determination on appeal. 34 Accordingly, we affirm the district court. 35 AFFIRMED.