United States v. Tartareanu, 884 F.3d 741

Adrian and Daniela Tartareanu ran Red Brick Investment Properties with co-defendant Minas Litos to buy, rehab, and resell homes between 2007–2009.
Red Brick provided hidden down payments and falsified loan applications (inflated income, fictitious assets) to obtain mortgages; 45 houses were sold, 32 loans funded by Bank of America.
A jury convicted the Tartareanus of wire fraud and conspiracy; original sentences were imposed and restitution ordered to Bank of America, but this court previously remanded, holding the bank was not a proper restitution victim. United States v. Litos.
On resentencing, the probation office recommended the same loss amount (~$1.8M); the district court treated the Bank of America loan amounts as part of the defendants’ intended loss and applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1.
Daniela sought a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2; the district court denied it, finding she was the key office person whose tasks were necessary to the scheme.
The court asked defense counsel whether all mitigation arguments had been addressed; counsel said yes. Sentences (Adrian 36 months; Daniela 21 months; $30,000 fines each) were below Guidelines ranges and are affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bank of America loan amounts can be included in "intended loss" under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1	Tartareanu: Bank of America was complicit and not a proper victim; its losses should be excluded	Government: Defendants intended to place lenders' funds at risk; intended loss can include amounts placed at risk regardless of victim culpability	Court: Affirmed inclusion — intended loss measures money defendants sought to place at risk; victim identity/culpability irrelevant
Whether Daniela was entitled to a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2	Daniela: She was less culpable than Adrian and Litos (no ownership, more limited role)	Government/District Ct: Daniela performed essential tasks (issued kickback checks, attended closings, used license, was office point-person)	Court: Denial affirmed — Daniela’s role was necessary and not substantially less culpable; no clear error
Whether district court failed to address principal mitigation arguments	Tartareanus: Court did not consider affidavits showing they believed they acted lawfully	Government: Court properly addressed mitigation and complied with procedural safeguards	Court: Waived — defense counsel affirmed on the record that the court addressed principal mitigation arguments; appeal on this ground waived

United States v. Litos, 847 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2017) (prior remand holding Bank of America not proper restitution victim)
United States v. Betts-Gaston, 860 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2017) (intended loss equals amount defendant placed at risk; victim culpability immaterial)
United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 1998) (discussed in context of actual loss, not intended-loss analysis)
United States v. Rosen, 726 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for loss interpretation and measurement)
United States v. Rosales, 813 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court must address principal mitigation arguments; waiver principles)
United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (advice on asking counsel whether mitigation arguments were addressed to avoid waiver)