United States v. Guy Stein, 756 F.3d 1027

Guy Stein pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for a check-kiting scheme that caused about $1 million in losses to multiple financial institutions.
Stein used checks from three bank accounts to cash at currency exchanges run by Wiley and a third exchange, repeatedly extending working capital for several months.
The scheme required increasingly larger checks and incurred about 2% per cycle in fees, inflating the apparent loss.
Losses included roughly $440,000 at Wiley’s exchanges and about $250,000 at Grand Avenue Currency Exchange, totaling over $1 million.
At sentencing, the district court initially calculated loss around $1,170,000, then amended to about $960,000 for guideline purposes, and finally ordered restitution slightly over $1,000,000.
Stein argued restitution should exclude the $440,000 linked to Wiley’s exchanges due to Wiley’s complicity; the government disagreed but sought a correction to approximately $960,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may include the Wiley exchanges losses despite Wiley's complicity	Stein argues the $440,000 should be excluded.	Stein’s complicity defense does not defeat the exchanges' victim status and restitution is proper.	Restitution to the exchanges was proper; Wiley’s conduct did not negate their victim status.
Whether the district court properly calculated loss for restitution and guideline purposes	Stein contends the loss figure and restitution amount were miscalculated.	District court reasonably estimated loss and used permissible calculations for restitution.	The district court’s loss calculation and restitution amount were within permissible discretion; affirmed.
Whether the district court committed a scrivener’s error in the restitution total on remand	Stein argues the $1,001,153 restitution reflects a scrivener’s error and should match the $960,000 guideline loss.	The change reflected conflicting factual findings, not a scrivener’s error.	Not a scrivener’s error; amended judgment correctly totaled restitution to $1,001,153.

United States v. White, 737 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for restitution; reasonable loss estimation)
United States v. Frith, 461 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court may make a reasonable estimate of loss)
United States v. Love, 680 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2012) (permissible computations for loss under guidelines)
United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2007) (defendant's conduct need not be sole cause of loss)