United States v. Eric Wendlandt
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7847
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wendlandt devised a mortgage fraud scheme in Kent County, Michigan, using forged documents to secure FHA-insured loans via Indigo Financial without Direct Endorsement Authority.
- The scheme caused HUD losses when borrowers defaulted and HUD reimbursed lenders for loan defaults.
- Wendlandt and codefendant Daniels originated approximately 100 FHA mortgages through Precise Mortgage, with about 20 fraudulent loans admitted by Wendlandt.
- The district court calculated HUD loss as $262,790.48 and applied a 12-level loss enhancement, plus leadership, for a total offense level of 17 and an upward variance to 42 months.
- Wendlandt challenged both the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and the district court’s upward variance; the government moved for upward variance.
- The court ultimately affirmed the sentence, holding the loss calculation reasonable and the variance justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss under § 2B1.1 was correctly calculated | Wendlandt contends loss relied on faulty HUD valuations | Wendlandt argues for smaller or zero loss | No error; loss reasonably estimated and credited appropriately |
| Whether credits against loss properly applied given market conditions | HUD’s recoveries reflect actual loss; foreseeability not required for credits | Extrinsic market downturns should reduce loss credits | Credits not dependent on market foreseeability; Minor controls applied |
| Whether the upward variance is substantively reasonable | Court’s reasons based on serious, ongoing wrongdoing and character defects | Variance should be limited to extent of actual conduct and acceptance of responsibility | Upward variance was reasonable given breadth and seriousness of crimes |
| Whether the district court properly considered intended loss for Martin property | Intended loss supported by substantial evidence of defendant’s intent | Dispute over definition and measurement of intended loss | District court’s intended loss calculation acceptable under standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cunningham, 669 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012) (sentence review for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Jones, 641 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2011) (loss calculation de novo; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (loss calculation methodology in fraud cases)
- United States v. Minor, 488 F. App’x 966 (6th Cir. 2012) (credit against loss not based on foreseeability of market conditions)
- United States v. VanderZwaag, 467 F. App’x 402 (6th Cir. 2012) (loss calculation and appraisals in similar contexts)
- United States v. Howley, 707 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2013) (guideline loss estimation within broad ranges)
- United States v. Turk, 626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010) (causal connection to collateral and “loss” definition)
- United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2012) (loss proxy measures as reasonable)