Opinion ID: 197760
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Loss Calculation under U.S.S.G. 2F1.1.

Text: The computation of the Offense Level under 2F1.1 requires a determination of the loss. A sliding scale has been adopted in 2F1.1(b)(1). The presentence report fixed the loss at $1,282,718, which required an addition of eleven levels. The court refused to consider the Mobil Oil soil transactions, which were the subject of count one, and deducted $740,642 from the loss figure with a resulting total loss figure of $542,076. That final calculation of the loss added ten levels to the loss. Henry suggested that the remediation costs, while exceeding $200,000 were less than the next dollar figure of $350,000 on the sliding scale, and inferentially argued that the loss addition should be computed at an increase of eight levels, rather than the ten levels fixed by the court. United States v. Kelley, 76 F.3d 436, 439 (1st Cir. 1996), teaches that a sentencing court's -18- valuation of loss is subject to the clearly erroneous standard. Given the reality that some of the Beede customers may face additional costs in the remediation context, the benefit to the defrauded customers arising from the transportation of the soils from their sites is at best speculative. We find no fault in the ignoring of that possible benefit in the calculation. Application Note 8 to 2F1.1 teaches that the (b)(1) loss need not be determined with precision, but rather that the court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss given the available information. Finally, we note that the district court departed downward one level due to its uncertainty as to whether the loss had been properly determined. We find no prejudicial error in ignoring the benefit. The defendant also complains that the district court improperly shifted the burden of demonstrating the value of the services provided to the Beede customers to the defendant. In view of the fact that the district court departed one level to accommodate the loss issue,7 it is not necessary to address the 7 The district court, in granting the one-level downward departure, explained that had he accepted Henry's argument that the loss level should be reduced by the benefit claimed by Henry, the resulting enhancement required by U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(1) would have been eight rather than ten levels. The district court further explained that had the loss level been calculated at eight levels, then the grouping rules for multiple counts, U.S.S.G. 3D1.1, et. seq., would have come into play with the consequence that the total offense level would have been reduced only one level, i.e., from 22 to 21. In recognition of the controversy over the calculation of the loss, the court then departed downward one level from the total offense level of 22 that included ten levels for the loss to a total offense level of 21. See transcript of sentencing hearing at 153-156. -19- final sentencing issue raised by Henry challenging the district court's holding that the defendant had the burden of proof as to the benefit provided the defrauded victims. In any event, we see no error on these facts. -20-