United States v. Michael Dowlen, 514 F. App'x 559

Dowlen operated a Tennessee real estate construction business and faced cash-flow problems after 2008 when Colony LP limited further funding.
He routinely covered subcontractor checks by cross-depositing between Northwest Georgia Bank and Cornerstone Community Bank, leading to a check-kiting pattern.
A August 2008 event involved a $250,000 infusion from Howards and Shoemakers intended to sustain the business, which tied to the scheme.
Cornerstone closed Dowlen’s account in October 2008; Northwest Georgia sought repayment, which Dowlen settled with Colony LP, resulting in no further lending and eventual bankruptcy.
Superseding indictment charged two counts of interstate fraud-related transport and 29 counts of bank fraud; Dowlen was convicted on the bank-fraud counts and sentenced to 37 months.
The PSR attributed losses at $410,000 (including $310,000 to Northwest Georgia and $100,000 related to Howards/Shoemakers), with the rest of the Howards/Shoemakers’ funds considered for legitimate business use.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of intent to defraud	Dowlen argues insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent.	Government contends circumstantial evidence shows intent to defraud.	Sufficient evidence supported intent to defraud.
Admissibility of Howard/Shoemaker testimony	Dowlen claims irrelevance and undue prejudice.	Government shows relevance to Dowlen’s knowledge and intent.	Testimony is admissible and not reversible error.
Jury instruction on repayment relevance	Dowlen contends instruction misleads about repayment relevance.	Government argues instructions properly framed good-faith defense.	Instructions, read as a whole, were acceptable.
Attributable loss calculation	Dowlen contests inclusion of NW Georgia loss and Howard/Shoemaker loss as attributable.	Government maintains both losses resulted from the scheme and are attributable.	Loss calculation supported attributable-loss findings; not clearly erroneous.
Downward departure and acceptance of responsibility	Dowlen seeks downward departure; argues acceptance of responsibility due to repayment.	Government argues no acceptance of responsibility under §3E1.1; no downward departure warranted.	Court appropriately denied downward departure; no plain error in acceptance-of-responsibility analysis.

United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (check kiting, loss attribution, and intent considerations)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard for crimes)
United States v. Yoon, 128 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 1997) (circumstantial evidence of intent to defraud)
United States v. Flowers, 55 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 1995) (post-detection repayment and loss calculations context)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary choices when multiple permissible views exist)
United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) (loss estimation under §2B1.1 commentary allows reasonable estimates)
United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1993) (probative value vs. prejudice in evidence)
United States v. Zipkin, 729 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1984) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (considerations on admission of prejudicial statements)