United States v. Melvin Harmon, 944 F.3d 734

Melvin Harmon, an employee at an Illinois motor-vehicle registration office, used his RAC‑ID/audit stamps to process registrations that allowed Missouri purchasers to register vehicles in Illinois and avoid Missouri sales tax.
An Inspector General review flagged 14 suspicious registrations; investigators pulled a 1,100‑transaction sample and identified 200 similar transactions, later reduced to 155 attributable to Harmon (by RAC‑ID or witness testimony).
A federal grand jury indicted Harmon; a jury convicted him on five counts (mail fraud, conspiracy, and interstate transportation of securities).
The PSR calculated an actual loss of $119,359.92 (one year’s lost Missouri sales tax across 155 vehicles) and recommended guidelines enhancements (including an eight‑level loss enhancement and a two‑level obstruction enhancement).
The district court adopted the PSR, applied the enhancements, imposed restitution in the loss amount, and sentenced Harmon to 33 months (below the Guidelines range).
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed the loss calculation and restitution, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to make sufficient specific findings to support the obstruction‑of‑justice enhancement.

Issue	Harmon’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Loss calculation for Guidelines enhancement	Calculation was speculative and relied on uncharged conduct; only transactions proven at trial should count	Calculation used concrete transaction data for 155 vehicles attributable to Harmon; reasonable conservative estimate; relevant conduct in a common scheme	Affirmed — loss amount ($119,359.92) was a reasonable estimate, not clearly erroneous; supported the eight‑level enhancement
Restitution under MVRA	Government failed to prove restitution amount by a preponderance; award excessive if based on uncharged conduct	MVRA requires awarding the victim’s full loss; restitution may include losses from the broader scheme if reasonably estimated	Affirmed — restitution award adopted the reasonable loss estimate and was not clearly erroneous
Two‑level obstruction enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1)	Enhancement based on perjury and witness interference lacked specific factual findings; erroneous application	Evidence showed false testimony and an improper request to a potential witness to write a character letter (violating release conditions); enhancement warranted	Reversed as applied — district court’s cursory ruling lacked the specific factual findings required to show independent exercise of judgment; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

United States v. Aden, 830 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court may rely on reasonable loss estimates for sentencing)
United States v. Farrington, 499 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court need only make a reasonable estimate of loss)
United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2007) (relevant conduct for sentencing can include uncharged acts that are part of the same scheme)
United States v. Cornelsen, 893 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2018) (loss from a broad fraudulent scheme may be included in sentencing/restitution)
United States v. Lange, 592 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2010) (MVRA requires restitution of the full amount of victims’ losses)
United States v. Abdul‑Aziz, 486 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court must make sufficiently detailed findings to support an obstruction enhancement)
Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury‑based sentencing enhancements require specific findings to protect the defendant’s right to testify)
United States v. Calderon‑Avila, 322 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2003) (appellate court gives deference to district courts on obstruction enhancements, but detailed findings are often required)