United States v. Euneisha Hearns, 713 F. App'x 276

Euneisha Hearns was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment for conspiracy to commit bank fraud; sentence included a 14-level Guidelines enhancement for attributable loss of $865,940.18 under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H).
The loss was calculated from 10 fraudulent mortgage transactions; Hearns admitted submitting materially false loan applications but contested attribution of losses from six transactions.
The PSR, supported by an agent’s affidavit and testimony and statements from borrowers and two accomplices, reported Hearns prepared/submitted the six challenged loan applications containing false borrower-financial information and misstatements about down payment/closing fund sources.
Borrowers told investigators they did not supply the false information; two accomplices said Hearns knew borrowers were not providing the down payments.
Hearns argued there was no direct evidence she falsified the information or knew of the falsity when submitting the six applications; she did not challenge the PSR’s reliability or that the applications were materially false.
The district court treated the six transactions as "relevant conduct" under the Guidelines and attributed their losses to Hearns; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for clear error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether losses from six untried transactions can be attributed to Hearns for sentencing	Hearns: No direct evidence she falsified or knew of falsity for those six loans; thus losses should not be attributed	Government/District Court: PSR and accomplice/buyer statements provide a plausible basis to infer Hearns knew and submitted false applications; treat as relevant conduct	Court: Affirmed — district court had sufficient evidence to plausibly infer knowledge and attribute losses; no clear error
Whether the district court erred in treating the six transactions as "relevant conduct" under the Guidelines	Hearns: Contended those transactions were not proven as relevant conduct attributable to her	District Court/Govt: Properly found them relevant conduct based on PSR and supporting evidence	Court: Affirmed — Hearns failed to adequately brief/challenge the relevant-conduct determination; no clear error

United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2011) (discusses attribution of loss and relevant-conduct principles under Guidelines)
United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (on challenging PSR and sufficiency of objections)
United States v. Valles, 484 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2007) (standards for contesting PSR findings)
United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2010) (factual findings upheld if plausible in light of the record)
United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2010) (briefing requirements and failure to adequately brief an issue)
United States v. Reasor, 541 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2008) (review for clear error of relevant-conduct findings)
United States v. Fernandez, 770 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court in comparable sentencing attribution context)