United States v. Conley, 89 F.4th 815

Pamela Kathryn Conley pled guilty to 24 counts of bank fraud and 4 counts of aggravated identity theft for a scheme involving fraudulent loan applications and forged lien releases between 2016 and 2021.
She was sentenced to 30 months in prison for bank fraud and a consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft, with restitution ordered for $451,064.64.
At sentencing, the district court relied on a presentence report (PSR) which calculated her loss as over $1 million, affecting her guideline range.
Conley objected, claiming the loss calculation did not consider certain payments and recovered collateral, but the government did not present evidence at the hearing.
On appeal, Conley challenged the calculation used for sentencing on bank fraud and invoked Dubin v. United States to challenge her aggravated identity theft plea.
The Tenth Circuit vacated the bank fraud sentence for improper loss calculation but affirmed her aggravated identity theft convictions.

Issue	Conley’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Loss Calculation for Guidelines	Loss in PSR was not properly reduced by payments/collateral; gov’t failed to prove actual loss with evidence	Objection insufficient to trigger factfinding; PSR loss correct	District court erred by accepting PSR without evidence; vacated and remanded
Adequacy of Guilty Plea for Aggravated Identity Theft under Dubin	Use of signatures was not at the "crux" of the fraud post-Dubin	Dubin distinguishable; signature use sufficient under law	No plain error; Dubin did not clearly apply; conviction affirmed

Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (Sentencing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Procedural reasonableness for sentencing)
Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (Clarified scope of aggravated identity theft under § 1028A)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Plain error standard on appeal)