United States v. Alejandro Jesus Cura, 663 F. App'x 898

Cura pled guilty to Count 1, conspiracy to commit healthcare and wire fraud, in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
The plea agreement specified loss between $20,000,000 and $50,000,000 and recommended various guideline adjustments.
Cura acted as nominal owner for five clinics used to bill insurers for fraudulent claims totaling over $31 million; actual payments were about $5 million.
PSI calculated loss at $31,662,509.67 and recommended a 22-level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(L), plus other adjustments.
Cura contested the 22-level increase, arguing for actual loss and objecting to the ‘intended loss’ interpretation amendment.
The district court upheld the 22-level increase, rejected willful blindness arguments, and sentenced Cura to 51 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cura responsible for full intended loss?	Government argued loss was reasonably foreseeable and within agreed range.	Cura argued only actual loss ($5,082,570) should be attributed.	No clear error; Cura liable for full intended loss.
Is the 22-level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(L) appropriate?	Government maintained intended loss supported the 22-level rise.	Cura claimed lesser increase based on his subjective lack of knowledge.	Affirmed; district court did not clearly err.
Did the court properly apply the sophisticated means enhancement?	Government argued enhancement warranted by sophisticated means.	Cura objected to the enhancement as unwarranted.	District court sustained Cura’s objection; enhancement not applied.

United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 2015) (loss attribution and applicable guidelines under 1B1.3(a)(1)(B))
United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (supports attribution of loss from co-conspirators' conduct)
United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2010) (foreseeability and relevant conduct in loss calculation)