Opinion ID: 1360649
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gross receipts enhancement

Text: The district court used an enhancement that applies when a defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions as a result of the offense. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(14)(A). Fact findings underlying that decision are reviewed here for clear error and its interpretation of the Guidelines reconsidered de novo. Smith, 440 F.3d at 706. The crux of Sandlin's argument is that the $1,000,000 in gross receipts ought to be offset by his collateral. In other words, Sandlin notes that he did not actually receive more than $1,000,000 from the false loan documents. First, he contends that most of his credit was never drawn upon. Second, even where the accounts were used, Sandlin's collateral at all times exceeded the face value of the loans. In essence, Sandlin alleges that he was borrowing his own money through the bank. Thus, he contends that the bank was never in danger of losing any money, much less $1,000,000. Although the parties continue to dispute on appeal whether the bank was in fact fully secured, the district court found that the amount disbursed by the bank was not less than $2,000,000. For our purposes, the risk of loss to the bank is irrelevant. See United States v. Gharbi, 510 F.3d 550, 554-57 (5th Cir. 2007). In Gharbi, the defendant unlawfully obtained real estate mortgages in excess of $1,000,000. Id. at 552. Relying on the plain text of the Guidelines, we held that the appropriate measure of gross receipts was the full face value of the loans. Id. at 555-56. Specifically, because the defendant used the full amounts for his own purposes, we did not consider whether he was entitled to credit for the security provided to the bank by the mortgaged property. Id. The defendant was not permitted to use the existence of collateral as a discount for his sentence. See id. We therefore concluded that gross receipts consist of the entire amount of th[e] loan, less nothing. Id. at 555. Sandlin suggests a distinction because there is no evidence that Gharbi was a no-loss case. However, requiring the district court to make artificial calculations concerning the value of collateral to be deducted from the amounts disbursed contradicts the plain language of the statute. Sandlin may not now substitute the words net receipts for gross receipts in the Guidelines. Id. We have held that gross receipts refers to the amount loaned, not the amount at risk, and our prior holding to that effect controls.