United States v. Issa Diallo, 710 F.3d 147

Diallo was arrested after using a counterfeit card to buy $2,600 in goods at Wegmans and was found with 53 counterfeit cards, gift cards, a skimming device, and other fraud tools.
Secret Service and police recovered laptops, thumb drives, GPS, and multiple counterfeit card accounts, with over 200 compromised card accounts identified.
Diallo admitted possessing compromised card numbers and loading them onto gift cards using a skimming device; he obtained account information from another individual.
On January 21, 2010, Diallo pled guilty to knowingly possessing 15+ counterfeit access devices with intent to defraud; the parties reserved loss amount and victims for sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court applied a 16-level enhancement for intended loss over $1 million based on aggregate credit limits totaling $1.6 million, and a 4-level enhancement for over 50 victims, yielding a total offense level of 27 and a 70-month sentence.
Diallo objected to both enhancements; the government argued intended loss could equal the cards’ credit limits, while the defense argued intended loss requires knowledge of a virtually certain loss. The court overruled objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How to compute intended loss for credit card fraud when credit limits are unknown	Diallo: intended loss cannot be the aggregate limit; no knowledge of limits.	Diallo: intended loss should reflect intended pecuniary harm, not assumed maximum limits.	Remanded to determine proper intended loss with deeper analysis.
Whether the 16-level intended-loss enhancement based on $1.6M aggregate limit was proper	Diallo: no proof of intent to cause such loss; overbroad aggregation.	Diallo: intended loss could reach maximum potential loss given card limits.	Vacated; remand for resentencing on intended loss amount.
Whether the 50+ victims enhancement was improper given actual loss	Diallo: victims must have suffered actual pecuniary loss.	Government argued potential victim count; but conceded step for remand.	Remanded on intended loss; existing victims issue acknowledged as improper and remand appropriate.

United States v. Geevers, 226 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2000) (burden-shifting framework; deference to loss estimates; deepen analysis required)
United States v. Kopp, 951 F.2d 521 (3d Cir. 1991) (rejects mechanical application of loss; requires actual or intended harm analysis)
United States v. Titchell, 261 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2001) (requires deeper analysis beyond initial potential loss; avoid simple substitution)
Langford v. United States, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (remand when properly calculated loss could change guidelines)
United States v. Manatau, 647 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2011) (intended loss requires the loss defendant actually aimed to inflict)
United States v. Kennedy, 554 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2009) (victims must have suffered actual pecuniary loss)