Opinion ID: 2996365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculation of the Loss Amount

Text: Unlike waiver, which is “accomplished by intent,” forfeiture “comes about through neglect.” Staples, 202 F.3d at 995. Forfeiture permits plain error review. Id.; see also Fed. No. 02-2218 5 R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). Rhodes contends on appeal that Magna over-compensated the victims of his fraud, and thus the court committed error when determining the amount of restitution. Rhodes’ complaint essentially is that Magna was not patient enough, and that it should have waited until interest rates had changed before liquidating the riskier investments Rhodes had purchased for Magna’s customers without their consent. As Rhodes failed to raise this objection in the trial court, he has forfeited the issue and we will therefore apply plain error review. This Court has held that under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, there must be a “causal relation between the defendant’s conduct and the loss that the Act requires him to restore.” United States v. Martin, 195 F.3d 961, 968 (7th Cir. 1999). While for sentencing purposes “loss” is defined as the greater of either the “actual” or the “intended” amount lost due to the fraud, see U.S.S.G. §2B1.1, cmt. n.2 (2002), for restitution purposes the statute implicitly requires that the restitution award be based on the amount of loss actually caused by the defendant’s offense. See United States v. Brierton, 165 F.3d 1133, 1139 (7th Cir. 1999). The district judge after review found that the investors Rhodes defrauded “suffered an actual loss of $1,104,557.39 because that is the amount of money Magna Invest- ments had to dole out in order to make its customers whole as a result of Rhodes’ fraud.” While it is not clear to us that the district court properly distinguished between “loss” for purposes of sentencing and “loss” for purposes of making restitution, see United States v. Rhodes, 201 F. Supp. 2d 906, 912 (C.D. Ill. 2002), we hold that it is ultimately immaterial for the purposes of this appeal. 6 No. 02-2218 The district court found that Rhodes’ actions caused the losses actually suffered by the victims of his fraudulent scheme, see id., and in the absence of any documented proof of miscalculation in the amount ordered, we refuse to set aside the amount of the restitution.