United States v. Sheneman (Michael Sheneman restricted filer, return papers unfiled and note in case)
3:10-cr-00126
N.D. Ind.Sep 9, 2011Background
- United States brings mortgage fraud case against Michael Sheneman in the Northern District of Indiana.
- Judge(s) conclude Sheneman’s objections to the PSR are overruled after a sentencing hearing on Aug 11, 2011.
- Loss amount for guideline enhancement § 2B1.1(b)(1)(i) is based on a mixture of 60 properties tied to Sheneman's scheme; 36 foreclosed with known losses, 24 with incomplete data.
- Court uses a conservative method: average loss per foreclosed property ($17,659.21) applied to the 24 properties lacking data to reach a total loss figure of $1,084,671.54 (plus other components).
- The scheme involved Sheneman and his son Jeremie Sheneman with 60 properties sold to four buyers; Sheneman funded down payments or provided power of attorney, while Jeremie falsified loan documents; the scheme targeted banks and four buyers as victims.
- The court treats uncharged but related conduct and joint activity as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and related authorities, supporting loss and victims calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss amount calculation under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(i) | Government asserts loss > $1,000,000 for 16-level enhancement. | Sheneman contends loss cannot be precisely calculated; argues overextension of data. | Overruled; loss exceeds $1,000,000. |
| Number of victims under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) | Banks and four buyers are victims due to substantiated losses. | Disputes over inclusion of all entities as victims; defense concedes four buyers are victims. | Two-level increase proper; victims include banks and four buyers. |
| Sophisticated means enhancement § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) | Sheneman used powers of attorney, forged documents, and complex scheme; sophisticated means shown. | (Not explicitly stated in excerpt; implied challenge to necessity/amount of sophistication) | Applied; two-level increase appropriate. |
| Gross receipts enhancement § 2B1.1(b)(14)(A) | Sheneman derived over $1,000,000 in mortgage proceeds via 34–47 properties; totals exceed threshold. | Argues against counting all properties; seeks more conservative figure. | Applied; gross receipts exceed $1,000,000 based on conservative calculations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2010) (guidance on victim, loss, and sophisticated means in mortgage fraud)
- United States v. Serfling, 504 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2007) (supports loss calculation and relevant conduct principles)
- United States v. Radziszewski, 474 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2007) (loss calculation in mortgage fraud where banks and buyers impacted)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (relevant conduct in determining loss in mortgage fraud)
- United States v. Locke, 643 F.3d 235 (7th Cir. 2011) (relevant conduct and joint activity principles for loss/ victims)