United States v. Jason Smith, 929 F.3d 545

Defendant Jason Smith (alias “Joshua Gaters”) pleaded guilty to passing counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a).
Smith ran a fraudulent presidential campaign scheme, using bad checks and credit cards to acquire campaign goods and services (office space, vehicles, staff pay) and attempted to secure a private jet with a $2.3 million deposit.
Authorities uncovered the scheme; victims and a federal investigator testified at sentencing.
The district court calculated an intended loss of about $2.7 million (largely the failed NetJets transaction), producing a Guidelines range above the statutory maximum; the court imposed the statutory maximum 120-month sentence.
The court also ordered nearly $55,000 in restitution to multiple victims based on checks and testimonial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in using intended loss (including the failed NetJets transaction) for Guidelines calculation	Smith: he did not intend to cause financial harm with the NetJets transaction	Government: Smith directed staff to secure the jet and used fraud in other large transactions, showing intent	Court: Affirmed — intended loss properly included the jet transaction
Whether restitution amounts were unsupported or excessive	Smith: restitution should be lower; late disclosure of two checks prejudiced him	Government: restitution supported by bad checks and witness testimony; estimates reasonable	Court: Affirmed — restitution findings were not clearly erroneous
Standard of review for sentencing and restitution findings	Smith: (implicit) challenges facts and amounts	Government: district court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; estimates acceptable	Court: Applied clear-error review and found no reversible error
Whether the district court abused discretion in assessing each restitution item	Smith: some items lacked proof or were speculative	Government: presented documentary and testimonial proof; court declined to award where proof was sketchy	Court: No abuse — court carefully considered each item and sometimes refused awards

United States v. Martinez, 690 F.3d 1083 (Eighth Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing factual findings)
United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888 (Eighth Cir.) (clear-error review principles)
United States v. Hartstein, 500 F.3d 790 (Eighth Cir.) (defendant’s subjective intent governs intended-loss analysis)
United States v. Adejumo, 848 F.3d 868 (Eighth Cir.) (restitution authorized only to extent evidence proves victim’s loss; testimonial evidence may suffice)
United States v. Alexander, 679 F.3d 721 (Eighth Cir.) (reasonable loss estimates at sentencing are permissible)
United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (Eighth Cir.) (restitution may be affirmed when award is a reasonable or likely underestimate)