United States v. Gonzalez Becerra, 784 F.3d 514

Gonzalez Becerra pleaded guilty to possessing stolen United States mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708; plea reserved sentencing issues to the district court.
Law enforcement found stolen mail addressed to nearly 250 distinct recipients (credit cards, personal and blank checks, bills, statements) at his car and residence.
The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) to increase the offense level by four levels because the offense “involved 50 or more victims.”
The district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.4(C), which treats intended recipients/addressees of undelivered mail as “victims,” and rejected the defendant’s factual challenge that some mail had been discarded after delivery.
On appeal, Gonzalez Becerra argued legal error: the guideline’s text limits “victim” to those who suffered pecuniary loss (fraud context) and the commentary’s broader definition is inconsistent with the guideline.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed for plain error (issue not preserved) and affirmed, holding the commentary’s definition is consistent with § 2B1.1 and longstanding precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sentencing Guidelines commentary (App. Note 4(C)) improperly defines “victim” to include intended recipients of undelivered mail	Gonzalez Becerra: § 2B1.1 is a fraud/property-fraud guideline; “victim” should mean those who suffered pecuniary loss, so commentary conflicts with text	Government/District Court: § 2B1.1 covers many property offenses, not only fraud; ordinary meaning of “victim” includes non-pecuniary harms and the mail-specific note addresses proof problems and non-monetary harms	Court: Commentary is authoritative and consistent with § 2B1.1; no plain error in applying App. Note 4(C) to count intended recipients as victims

Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (commentary to the Guidelines is authoritative unless inconsistent with guideline or statute)
United States v. Tafoya-Montelongo, 659 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir.) (plain-error requires clear or obvious legal error)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice under plain-error review)
United States v. Leach, 417 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir.) (App. Note 4(C) treats intended recipients of stolen mail as victims)
United States v. Moore, 733 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.) (applying App. Note 4(C): each intended recipient of unlawfully taken mail is a victim)
United States v. Otuya, 720 F.3d 183 (4th Cir.) (rejecting pecuniary-loss-only reading where mail theft produced non-monetary harms)