United States v. Manatau
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15804
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendant Afuhia Masiu Manatau was involved in stealing identities, social security numbers, credit cards, and checks over a year.
- He was caught in surveillance five times before indictment and later pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.
- The district court calculated the advisory guidelines using § 2B1.1, focusing on actual vs. intended loss; it used a six-level enhancement based on intended loss.
- The government argued that Manatau's intended loss exceeded $60,000, using the total available credit limits of stolen checks as a basis.
- Manatau contended that his intended loss was only about $1,800 for the challenged incidents and that a four-level increase was proper; the district court did not adopt his view.
- The Tenth Circuit held that the mens rea for intended loss is purpose-based, vacated the sentence, and remanded for determining the defendant's actual intended losses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the mens rea standard for intended loss? | Manatau argued the standard should reflect a knowledge-based or lesser mens rea. | Manatau contended the district court applied an incorrect standard, not requiring purposeful intent. | Intended loss requires purposeful intent. |
| Did the district court err in applying the six-level enhancement for intended loss under the proper standard? | The government argued the higher enhancement was supported by intended loss. | Manatau argued the enhancement should be four levels based on his actual intended losses. | Remand is required to reassess under the correct standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (distinguishes intent from knowledge in modern law)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (principles on intent and moral culpability)
- Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (intent requirement in inchoate offenses)
- Lin, 410 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (mens rea for intended loss discussed; not binding to disregard purpose)
- Baum, 555 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses mens rea standard in context of prior dicta)
- Mei, 315 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2003) (intended loss shown by victimization intent, context debated)
- McCoy, 508 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2007) (intended loss can reflect what loss was expected)
- Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (preponderance standard and reasonable estimation in loss calculations)