United States v. McKanry, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 471

McKanry was convicted of conspiracy to defraud lenders, false statement to a federal agent, and mail/wire fraud in a mortgage scheme involving twelve properties.
Sellers group (including McKanry and his son) and buyers group arranged dual contracting to inflate proceeds and down payments for loans.
Down payments and payouts were made in Moses's name, with closing documents misrepresenting sources and amounts to lenders in interstate commerce.
Lenders wired funds and USA Title mailed closing documents; the interstate wires/mailings were integral to the fraud.
Trial evidence included co-conspirator testimony, manufacturered HUD statements, and recorded statements by McKanry about down payments.
The district court sentenced McKanry to 27 months and restitution of $732,753.47; McKanry timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the conspiracy verdict supported by sufficient evidence?	McKanry joined and participated in a multi-property scheme.	No harm intended; he expedited closings, lacking mens rea to defraud lenders.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported conspiracy to commit mail/wire fraud and false statements.
Is there sufficient evidence for the seven mail/wire fraud counts?	Evidence showed bogus payouts and down payments across properties.	Some properties lacked direct evidence of payments or misstatements.	Yes; reasonable jury could find mail/wire fraud on the challenged counts.
Was the Count 2 false-statement conviction supported by the record?	McKanry lied about down payments to a Postal Inspector.	Attempts to correct the misstatement negate liability.	Yes; the false statement was proven and material.
Was the loss calculation for sentencing properly determined under § 2B1.1?	Loss included full investor losses from all twelve deals as reasonably foreseeable.	Only losses from three properties tied to convictions; downplaying others.	Yes; court reasonably estimated loss for all reasonably foreseeable acts in the conspiracy.
Was the obstruction of justice enhancement properly applied?	denial of down-payment assistance impeded investigation.	Enhancement requires clear obstruction; denial did not significantly impede.	Yes; denial significantly obstructed investigation and warranted § 3C1.1.

Schmuck v. United States, 489 F.2d 705 (U.S. 1989) (mail and wire must be part of the fraud's execution)
United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (interstate mailing foreseeable when signer signs fee-laden documents)
United States v. Parish, 565 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2009) (loss calculation permissible by reasonable estimation and preponderance standard)
United States v. Tyndall, 521 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2008) (sentencing may use relevant conduct proven by preponderance of the evidence)
United States v. Finck, 407 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2005) (obstruction of justice analogue and standards for § 3C1.1)