Opinion ID: 77852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court Erred in Its Calculation of the Amount of Loss.

Text: The government argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines when it calculated the amount of loss, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), by deferring to the $2,000,000 forfeiture verdict returned by the jury. The government argues that the court was required to make an independent finding about loss, which the government contends exceeded $7,000,000. We agree. Our decision in United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.2006), resolves this issue. We explained in Hamaker that, in calculating the amount of loss, the Guidelines require a district court to take into account not merely the charged conduct, but rather all `relevant conduct,' in calculating a defendant's offense level. Id. at 1336. The district court in Hamaker rested its finding on the forfeiture verdict, as occurred in this appeal. We explained that the district court in Hamaker erred in three respects. First, forfeiture and loss require distinct calculations and need not be calculated identically, id. at 1337, even though they are subject to the same burden of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence, id. at 1337 & n. 21. Because `[f]orfeiture is a penalty imposed on a criminal independent of any loss to the crime victim,' the amount of the jury's forfeiture verdict is not necessarily the correct measure of loss for sentencing purposes, and the procedures for arriving at a forfeiture amount and calculating loss are distinct. Id. (quoting United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711, 715 (4th Cir.2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Second, the district court erroneously speculated that the forfeiture verdict necessarily meant that the jury had found the defendant not culpable for certain charged acts. See id. Third, the district court abdicated its responsibility to make independent findings establishing the factual basis for its Guidelines calculations. Id. at 1338 (emphasis omitted). Our decision in Hamaker compels the conclusion that the district court erred. The district court adopted the forfeiture verdict of the jury as the amount of loss for the purposes of the Guidelines calculation and explained only that the court found it very difficult . . . to increase the amount of loss above the amount that the jury returned. The court failed to take into account all relevant conduct or explain why certain conduct was not relevant, failed to understand the difference between forfeiture and loss, and abdicated its responsibility to make independent findings under the Guidelines.