United States v. Romero Minor
488 F. App'x 966
6th Cir.2012Background
- Romero Minor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371) and 48 counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) tied to a mortgage-fraud scheme.
- He recruited investors/straw buyers, submitted false loan applications, obtained inflated appraisals, and kept excess funds, using some to pay kickbacks.
- The plea agreement split on loss calculations under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1): government argued loss over $1,000,000; Minor reserved the right to contest loss.
- The PSR chart listed 48 properties and showed three methods to compute loss, with the lowest total $1,311,672.51 driving a 16-level increase.
- At sentencing the district court overruled objections and held loss exceeded $1,000,000, specifically $1,311,672.51, producing a guidelines range of 63–78 months.
- Minor was sentenced to 60 months on the conspiracy count and 69 months on the 48 wire-fraud counts, all concurrent; Minor appealed challenging the loss calculation and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause at sentencing | Minor argues charted loss violated confrontation rights due to plea reservation. | State or rely on that the Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing and testimony was provided. | Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing; chart admissible. |
| Proper loss determination under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1) | Minor disputes loss calculation and foreseeability under the guideline. | District court properly estimated loss by preponderance of the evidence. | Loss calculation upheld; district court's method entitled to deference. |
| Foreseeability in determining actual loss | Minor could not have foreseen the real estate crash reducing collateral value or lender resales. | Foreseeability governs loss, not collateral resale considerations for restitution. | Reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm was the mortgage loans; collateral value foreseeability not required for loss. |
| Credit against loss for collateral disposition | Credit should reflect collateral disposition values if foreclosed. | Credits apply per the note and need not hinge on market foreclosures. | Credit against loss does not require foreseeability of collateral market changes; district court correctly credited collateral recoveries. |
| Impact of lender resales on loss determination | Lender profits from resales could affect loss. | Resale profits are relevant to restitution, not to loss calculation. | Resale profits did not alter loss; loss based on mortgage principal and defaulted amounts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Katzopoulos, 437 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2006) (Confrontation rights in sentencing not applicable)
- United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (Confrontation Clause not controlling at sentencing)
- United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) (Confrontation Clause and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) (Loss calculation standard at sentencing)
- United States v. Rothwell, 387 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2004) (Deference to district court on loss findings)
- United States v. Turk, 626 F.3d 743 (2d Cir. 2010) (Foreseeability in loss calculation; collateral considerations)