United States v. Mayendia-Blanco
905 F.3d 26
1st Cir.2018Background
- Alejandro Mayendía-Blanco purchased and "flipped" multiple properties and sold three properties to family members (mother and father). Down payments were reported on HUD settlement statements but were later reimbursed to the family purchasers.
- Indicted on three counts for making and conspiring to make false statements on mortgage loan applications (18 U.S.C. § 1014 and § 2). Pleaded guilty to Count Two (father's loan); Counts One and Three were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
- The PSR calculated loss using the sum of the three down payments ($409,129.97), yielding a Guidelines offense level of 16 (21–27 months). Plea agreement had contemplated a loss tied only to Count Two (about $140,000), yielding level 13 (12–18 months).
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR approach and sentenced Mayendía to 21 months. He appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly included dismissed counts as relevant conduct without sufficient evidentiary support, and (2) the court failed to apply U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n.3(E)(iii) to subtract fair market value of unsold collateral from loss.
- First Circuit remanded for clarification; district court confirmed it used the three down payments as the loss basis. On further appeal the First Circuit found Mayendía waived the ‘‘preponderance of evidence’’ challenge to including Counts One and Three and forfeited the collateral-subtraction argument, reviewed that contention for plain error, and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusion of dismissed Counts One and Three as relevant conduct (loss basis) | Mayendía: district court erred; amounts from dismissed counts cannot be used without jury finding or admission and without preponderance of the evidence. | Govt: issue waived/forfeited; even if considered, sufficient record supports inclusion; PSR notice given. | Waived on appeal (argument not raised in opening brief); court declines to address merits. |
| Failure to subtract fair market value of unsold collateral under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n.3(E)(iii) | Mayendía: application note ‘‘shall’’ require subtraction of collateral value from loss in mortgage fraud cases where collateral not disposed of. | Govt: argument forfeited; even if error, Mayendía cannot show prejudice because he did not identify a concrete, lower loss figure that would produce a lower Guidelines range. | Forfeited and reviewed for plain error; even assuming clear error, Mayendía failed to show the error affected substantial rights (no specific alternative loss figure presented). Affirmed. |
| Procedural challenge to sentencing explanation and evidentiary materials | Mayendía: court relied on bank documents not provided/translated; lacked adequate explanation for loss calculation. | Govt: issues moot or forfeited after district court clarified loss figure; sentencing explanation sufficient. | Moot or forfeited; district court later specified loss $409,129.97 based on down payments; no reversible procedural error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.) (endorsing loan-amount minus collateral-value method to calculate actual loss in mortgage fraud cases)
- United States v. Foley, 783 F.3d 7 (1st Cir.) (affirming mortgage-principal baseline for actual loss where omissions increased lender risk)
- United States v. Cox, 851 F.3d 113 (1st Cir.) (discussing loss-calculation methodology as legal question and admissibility of related-conduct loss)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (showing an incorrect, higher Guidelines range and resulting sentence can establish prejudice for plain-error review)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (Sup. Ct.) (clarifying particularity required to show prejudice under plain-error review)