Opinion ID: 615510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The $1.4 Million Check

Text: Finally, Stergios claims that the district court should not have included the fraudulent $1.4 million check described in his PSI when calculating the loss amount, because that check did not result in actual loss and his mental state was such that he did not intend for any loss to occur. [12] We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, but we review for clear error the factual findings upon which the district court based its loss determination. United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286, 290 (1st Cir.2008). Sentencing Guideline Section 2B1.1 governs offenses involving fraud or deceit and allows for a 16-level increase above base offense level 7 when the loss occasioned by an offense is greater than $1 million. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I). The commentary to the Guidelines instructs a sentencing court to consider the greater of actual loss or intended loss when computing loss amounts. Id. § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(A). Intended loss is a term of art meaning the loss the defendant reasonably expected to occur at the time he perpetrated the fraud. Innarelli, 524 F.3d at 290. [W]e focus our loss inquiry for purposes of determining a defendant's offense level on the objectively reasonable expectation of a person in his position at the time he perpetrated the fraud, not on his subjective intentions or hopes. Id. at 291. Stergios argued at sentencing that the $1.4 million check was a fantasy manic extreme brought about by his untreated bipolar disorder and that he did not intend for any loss to occur as a result of the check. However, the district court found that the check was a genuine result of Mr. Stergios believing that he had gotten away with things thus far and was ready for greater things. The court did not believe Stergios had been motivated by his bipolar disorder: [M]y view is that the conduct with regard to the last check here wasn't a result of his lack of medication, wasn't a result of his grandiosity that the prior checksprior activities were working for the most part. In my view, his conduct in paragraph 19 was part of a spree and ongoing series of offenses, one with a similar purpose and similar modus operandi. I think there is a degree of similarity. I think the methodology involved, the close time interval, that makes it relevant conduct. What the court found particularly troubling was what to do with Mr. Stergios given his past history and the prior offenses. As the PSI detailed, Stergios had a relatively extensive criminal history, including the 2005 conviction. The court emphasized that Stergios had not even finished his sentence for the 2005 conviction when he began engaging in the 2009 crimes, which indicated a genuine feeling that the laws of society don't apply to you. That you know better than other people and you're going to do whatever you want to do. Given Stergios's prior misconduct, the court noted that it could sentence Stergios above the guideline range, with or without the $1.4 million check factored in. We recognize that the district court's inclusion of the $1.4 million check in its loss calculation may have resulted in a higher sentence for Stergios than he would otherwise have received, [13] but a party dissatisfied with the sentencing court's quantification of the amount of loss in a particular case must go a long way to demonstrate that the finding is clearly erroneous. United States v. Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 407 (1st Cir.1995). Sentencing judges must receive wide berth in determining what information is sufficiently reliable to be used at sentencing. Id. Stergios has given us no reason to question the district court's conclusion here. Furthermore, Stergios's subjective state of mind at the time of his offenses is not what governs. Rather, we must ask whether an objectively reasonable person would have intended for the $1.4 million check to cause loss. Innarelli, 524 F.3d at 291. Under either analysis, we find that the district court did not commit clear error.