United States v. Robert Loffredi
718 F.3d 991
7th Cir.2013Background
- Loffredi appeals a 78-month sentence for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341).
- He challenged only the two-level upward adjustment for an offense involving ten or more victims under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i).
- Loffredi owned a securities brokerage and diverted about $2.8 million from customers over four years to personal expenses and debts.
- Fourteen customers were defrauded; 12 losses were reimbursed by LPL Financial (two by Loffredi himself).
- The district court counted all 14 as victims; the PSR accepted that calculation for the enhancement.
- Loffredi argued Panice and other circuits bar counting reimbursed victims; he asserted only the broker-dealer was a true victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reimbursed victims count for § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i). | Loffredi; Panice supports excluding reimbursed victims. | Loffredi; readings from Yagar and others exclude such victims. | Victims including reimbursed parties may be counted; upheld. |
| Whether the plain meaning of 'victim' requires a duration of loss. | Loffredi emphasizes 'sustained' implies longer loss. | Panice rejects temporal baseline; no need for persistence. | No temporal baseline required; sustained loss not needed to count victims. |
| Whether double counting of 'actual loss' is permissible for sentencing. | Double counting reflects offense seriousness; no prohibition. | Risk of improper double counting if not limited. | Double counting allowed in guidelines context. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2010) (reimbursed victims counted as victims for § 2B1.1(b)(2))
- United States v. Stepanian, 570 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (discusses 'sustained' loss and timing)
- United States v. Kennedy, 554 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2009) (excludes certain reimbursements from victim tally)
- United States v. Conner, 537 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (victim counting considerations)
- United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (victim definitions and reimbursements)
- United States v. Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (contractual reimbursement distinctions)
- United States v. Yagar, 404 F.3d 967 (6th Cir. 2005) (short-lived losses not always actual losses)