United States v. Love
680 F.3d 994
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Brown masterminded a large mortgage fraud scheme in Chicago and Las Vegas, recruiting lawyers, accountants, loan officers, bank employees, realtors, builders, and nominees to facilitate inflated-property purchases.
- Nominee buyers were paid to take title with false promises of no down payment and eventual removal from the loan within 12 months, with properties sold at inflated prices.
- Lenders issued roughly 150 fraudulent Chicago loans (over $95 million) and about 33 Las Vegas loans (about $16 million).
- Brown recruited various professionals to create fraudulent loan packages, false verifications, and other falsified documents to support the schemes.
- Brown pleaded guilty in both districts; sentencing consolidated results were 216 months (Las Vegas) and 240 months (Chicago), to run concurrently, plus restitution over $32 million.
- Leslie Love, involved in the Chicago scheme, pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and was sentenced to 66 months; he now appeals the sentence challenging the victim-count calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Love's enhancement for more than ten victims was correct | Love | Love argues only seven victims; government concedes error | Remanded for resentencing with correct 7-victim calculation |
| Whether Love's restitution allocation was correct | Love | Love | Correct restitution designation to seven victim lenders on remand |
| Loss calculation for Brown's sentence | United States | Brown argues loss charts are unreliable | Loss estimate based on reasonable methodology; no clear error |
| Whether Brown's sentence is substantively reasonable | United States | Brown | No abuse of discretion; sentence within/near guideline range and below range with rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Glosser, 623 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of sentencing procedures)
- United States v. Green, 648 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2011) (loss calculations must be reasonable estimates)
- United States v. Serfling, 504 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (loss calculation methods for sentencing)
- United States v. Radziszewski, 474 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2007) (permissible loss calculations in guidelines)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence admissibility and PSR considerations at sentencing)
- United States v. Oros, 578 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2009) (reliability standard for sentencing information)