Opinion ID: 731583
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wells

Text: 39 At sentencing, the Government estimated that Wells' fraudulent activities relating to 31 bank accounts resulted in directly attributable loss of $359,377 (J.A. at 470-71), and reasonably foreseeable loss of $44,200 (J.A. at 472). Like Evans and Bullard, Wells concedes that some loss, $57,192, should be directly attributed to him, but contends that the Government's calculation of directly attributable fraud loss and reasonably foreseeable fraud loss, both of which were adopted by the district court (J.A. at 465-66), is clearly erroneous. 40 We agree that losses suffered by five of the 31 accounts should be directly attributed to Wells because Wells (employing an alias) acted as either a drawer, payee, or maker of checks written from the account. (J.A. at 255 (Zermee Pryor account), 260-61 (Christopher Westbrooks and Robert Chalmers accounts), 262 (two Charles Rainey accounts).) With respect to these five accounts, totalling $59,792, the district court correctly attributed the fraud loss directly to Wells. 41 The record on appeal, however, does not support the Government's contention that 18 of the remaining 26 accounts can be directly attributed to Bullard. Each of the 18 accounts was connected to Bullard by the Government through evidence found in the search of his residence. 9 The record on appeal does not indicate that Wells (or one of his aliases) was a drawer, payee, or maker on any of the accounts, nor does it establish that he aided or abetted the fraud affecting these accounts. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). As a result, adding the $153,812 loss on these 18 accounts to the losses correctly determined to be directly attributable to Wells was improper. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for consideration of these accounts. 42 With respect to the remaining eight accounts, namely, the Purnell Walker, Ruth Paul, Silver Spring Rehabilitation Center, Steven Guttenberg, Alliance for Aging Research, Eric Jackson, William Ecker, and Holzbierlein accounts, the record before us is not sufficiently clear (J.A. at 260, 63-66), to permit us to assess meaningfully whether the losses on these accounts should be attributed to Wells under either a directly attributable or reasonably foreseeable theory. Accordingly, we remand consideration of these accounts to the district court. See Wilson, 980 F.2d at 260, 262; see also Tice, 908 F.2d at 1208.