Opinion ID: 2798309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calculation of Loss for Sentencing Purposes

Text: Maisonet challenges the calculation of loss component of his total offense level and its resulting Guidelines range. Specifically, he argues that the district court miscalculated the -10- amount of loss by disregarding U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) Application Note 3(E) (Credits Against Loss), which resulted in an incorrect total offense level of twenty instead of fourteen, and thus a higher Guidelines sentencing range. He asserts that, prior to his charge and arrest, he was not on notice of any criminal investigation and that Pentagon did not press criminal charges against him. Maisonet claims that, because he did not know of any criminal investigation when he restituted close to three-fourths of the amount obtained by fraud, the district court erred by failing to discount the restituted amount from the amount of loss and, instead, using the entire amount of loss for sentencing purposes. We disagree. As discussed above, we review the district court's interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and its underlying factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Batchu, 724 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2013). Application Note 3(E)(i) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) provides an offset from the amount of loss for: [t]he money returned, and the fair market value of the property returned and the services rendered, by the defendant or other persons acting jointly with the defendant, to the victim before the offense was detected. The time of detection of the offense is the earlier of (I) the time the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency. -11- U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) cmt. n.3(E)(i) (emphasis added). Maisonet's contention that he was not on notice of any criminal investigation and that Pentagon did not seek to have criminal charges brought against him is irrelevant because what is determinative under the Guidelines is the time of detection of the offense by either the victim or the government. See United States v. Mardirosian, 602 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2010) (The Sentencing Commission's commentary is to be 'read in a straightforward, commonsense manner.' (quoting United States v. Carrasco-Mateo, 389 F.3d 239, 244 (1st Cir. 2004))). Pursuant to the clear language of the Guidelines, in order to be entitled to a deduction in the loss amount, Maisonet must have restituted the money before either Pentagon or the government detected the offense. See id. ([C]redit for the return of property under Application Note 3(e) is only available if the property is returned before either the victim or law enforcement becomes aware of the crime.); United States v. García-Pastrana, 584 F.3d 351, 391-92 (1st Cir. 2009) (defining 'time of detection' as 'the earlier of (I) the time of the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency' (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(E)(i))). That clearly did not happen here. The district court correctly found that Pentagon detected the offense and filed suit in state -12- court in April 2006 seeking reimbursement of the monies that had been fraudulently obtained. The court further found that any restitution made was a result of the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties on May 1, 2008, in the civil case. It then correctly concluded that Maisonet did not restitute any money before the offense was detected and, thus, was not entitled to any offset. In conclusion, because Maisonet failed to begin restitution of the $445,000 loss amount before Pentagon (the victim) discovered the offense, the district court correctly found that the loss amount was more than $400,000 but did not exceed $1,000,000 and, thus, the sentence enhancement of fourteen levels was appropriate pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). The resulting total offense level and Guidelines range were also correct.