United States v. Snow
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25073
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Snow pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four counts of wire fraud, resulting in concurrent ninety-month sentences.
- He’s challenged the loss calculation method for Archie property and two Guideline enhancements for leadership and sophisticated means.
- The scheme spanned April 2003–February 2007 in Coweta, Oklahoma, involving roughly 44 home purchases and substantial losses to lenders.
- Snow, through Storybook Homes and related entities, recruited buyers, inflated home prices, and provided cash back, down payments, and debt payoff to obtain loans.
- He directed loan originators, taught fraudulent filing techniques, and used various concealment tactics (e.g., below-threshold disbursements, cashier’s checks) to avoid detection.
- The district court used certified assessor’s value for Archie property to estimate loss, resulting in an $2,560,397.87 loss and the same $2,500,001–$7,000,000 loss band for purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation methodology for Archie property | Snow contends loss must be gain-based or open-market value. | District court should use market value; gain-based loss invalid. | Court upholds use of certified assessor/appraisal value as reasonable loss estimate. |
| Role as organizer or leader under § 3B1.1 | Snow did not control others; not an organizer/leader. | Snow directed scheme and coordinated efforts; qualifies as organizer/leader. | Court affirming two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) as organizer. |
| Sophisticated means enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) | Scheme involved multiple complex concealment steps. | No single step was highly sophisticated; overall conduct not especially intricate. | Court affirms two-level enhancement for sophisticated means. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 634 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review; loss measured as actual or intended; net loss after foreclosures)
- United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2010) (loss may be reasonably estimated; gain as fallback when loss undeterminable)
- United States v. Messner, 107 F.3d 1448 (10th Cir. 1997) (guidelines advise fair market value when no sale price is available)
- United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2009) (organizer/leader criteria; coordination and control considerations)
- United States v. Weiss, 630 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2010) (sophisticated means requires especially complex or intricate conduct overall)
- United States v. Jones, 530 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2008) (legal standard for reviewing guidelines applications; de novo conclusions of law; clear-error factual findings)