United States v. Gregory Torlai, Jr., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17745

Torlai was convicted of sixteen counts of making false farm-benefit claims under 18 U.S.C. §1014.
The district court calculated loss at $410,372, triggering a 14-level Guideline increase.
The case concerns whether the district court properly determined loss for U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 purposes.
Crop insurance is a government-subsidized program; subsidies and A&O expenses are relevant to loss.
The district court treated the entire indemnity as loss and included subsidies and A&O expenses; Torlai challenges these calculations and the method of loss calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether loss calculation properly used indemnities as loss basis	Torlai argues indemnities were not all payable due to void policies and offsets.	Government contends full indemnities are loss since fraud voids benefits.	No error in treating full indemnities as loss.
Whether producer premiums should offset loss	Torlai says premiums were already deducted from indemnities and thus not loss.	Government argues premiums are not offsets; fraudffected policy still yields full loss.	District court correctly declined premium offsets.
Whether subsidies and A&O expenses should be included in loss	Torlai contends subsidies/A&O are not foreseeable losses caused by fraud.	Government shows subsidies and A&O were foreseeable and tied to loss.	Yes, subsidies and A&O included in loss.
Whether Sixth Amendment jury-fact concerns affect loss calculation	Torlai asserts facts used for loss were not jury-determined beyond reasonable doubt.	Because Guidelines are advisory post-Booker, loss need not be jury-found beyond reasonable doubt.	No Sixth Amendment issue; loss calculations permitted within advisory guidelines.

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence; procedural/ substantive review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review for sentencing; procedural proper calculation first)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1993) (guidelines commentary binding unless unconstitutional or plainly erroneous)
United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) (Sixth Amendment concerns re sentencing facts; judge-found facts within advisory guidelines permissible)
United States v. Simpson, 995 F.2d 109 (7th Cir. 1993) (premium deduction issue in crop insurance fraud cases; persuasive but not controlling)