Opinion ID: 606347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether The District Court Erred In Its Imposition Of

Text: The Sentences
37 We review de novo the legality of a sentence, United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1992), as well as the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Blaize, 959 F.2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.) (interpretation), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2954, 119 L.Ed.2d 576 (1992); United States v. Kohl, 972 F.2d 294, 297 (9th Cir.1992) (application). We examine for clear error the district court's factual findings underlying a sentence. United States v. Chapnick, 963 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1992).

38 The appellants argue that the district court erred by failing to apportion the loss calculations between pre- and post-Guideline dates. Although mail and wire fraud offenses that straddle the Sentencing Guidelines' effective date of November 1, 1987, are not deemed to be continuing offenses and must be sentenced separately, a district court confronted with a situation like that presented in the instant appeals can avoid the risk of double-counting losses by sentencing concurrently on the pre- and post-Guideline counts. See United States v. Niven, 952 F.2d 289, 293-94 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Because the district court properly imposed concurrent sentences on the appellants' pre- and post-Guideline offenses, the sentences do not run afoul of Niven. 39 The appellants also contend that the district court erred by failing to explain how it arrived at a figure between $500,000 and $1,000,000 as the total loss suffered by American, particularly when the appellants' own figures represented a loss that was only 1% of the amount calculated by the government. It is the probable or intended loss resulting from a crime, however, not the actual loss suffered, that a district court must determine for sentencing purposes. United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2F1.1 (Nov.1989) (U.S.S.G.)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 334, 121 L.Ed.2d 252 (1992); United States v. Davis, 922 F.2d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir.1991). A product's fair market value ordinarily constitutes an appropriate measure of loss. Hernandez, 952 F.2d at 1118. In ascertaining a product's fair market value, [t]he loss need not be determined with precision, and may be inferred from any reasonably reliable information available. Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n. 3)). 40 The record shows that the district court accepted and incorporated the presentence investigative reports' (PSI) loss calculation exceeding $1.3 million in its findings on this point, and then discounted that figure to one falling between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to reflect the fact that the appellants did not profit from every ticket obtained. The district court's loss calculation was adequate under the circumstances. See generally United States v. Avila, 905 F.2d 295, 298-99 (9th Cir.1990) (district court's incorporation of PSI findings sufficient for purposes of review where adequately supported by record).
41
42 Winkleman argues that his sentence must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing because (1) he should not have received a 4-level upward adjustment for his role in the offense; (2) he should have received either a 4-point downward adjustment for his minimal part in the crime, or a 2-level downward adjustment for a minor role; and (3) in any event, his sentence of 48 months exceeded the Guideline range determined by the court. 43 The short answer to points (1) and (2) is that U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) authorizes a 4-level upward adjustment in a defendant's offense level if he was an organizer or leader of a[n extensive] criminal activity. The record reflects that Winkleman exercised decision making authority and, inter alia, recruited accomplices for a scheme that had at least three participants and used the unknowing services of many outsiders. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (nn. 2, 3). The district court did not err in making the 4-level upward adjustment and, a fortiori, it properly denied the request for 2- and 4-level downward adjustments. 44 The government concedes that Winkleman's sentence is in error. At sentencing the district court and counsel calculated an offense level of 21 which, following the district court's grant of an 8- rather than 9-level increase based on amount of loss, should have resulted in a reduction of Winkleman's offense level from 21 to 20. Because this mathematical error resulted in the imposition of a sentence slightly beyond the upper range for his correct criminal history category and offense level, Winkleman's sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing. 45
46 Rinker argues that the district court erred not only by adjusting his offense level upward 2 points, but by failing to adjust his offense level downward either 2 or 4 points, based on his minor or minimal role in the offense. A court may adjust a defendant's offense level upward by 2 points if the defendant engaged in more than minimal planning in an offense involving fraud and deceit resulting in loss to the victim in excess of $2,000. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A). More than minimal planning is defined as, inter alia, repeated acts over a period of time or, if a single act, more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n. 1(f)). Such planning also exists if significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense. Id. 47 The record supports the PSI's finding on this point. Because the district court did not err by adjusting Rinker's offense level upward by 2 points, it necessarily follows that it did not err by rejecting Rinker's argument that he was entitled to a 2- or 4-level downward adjustment. 48
49 Mullins argues that the district court erred by not departing downward in imposing his sentence. He argues that the court incorrectly believed that it lacked the discretion to depart. Because the record does not support this contention, but indicates rather that the district court acted within its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's decision. See United States v. Reyes, 966 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 268 (1992). 50 Because we find no merit to any of the appellants' remaining arguments, the judgments of conviction are all AFFIRMED. The sentences imposed on Mullins and Rinker are AFFIRMED. The sentence imposed on Winkleman is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.