United States v. Yoba Falcon
462 F. App'x 866
11th Cir.2012Background
- Falcon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371) and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341) based on fraudulent purchases of eight properties.
- Falcon challenged the district court’s loss calculation, arguing credits should apply to 16 canceled purchases and that loss should be zero.
- Guidelines base offense level and loss are governed by § 2B1.1 and related commentary, including actual vs intended loss and credit against loss.
- The district court used the loans amount to determine loss, with deference allowed for reasonable loss estimation under the Guidelines.
- Falcon did not fairly preserve a challenge to credit against loss for the canceled 16 transactions in the district court.
- This court reviews loss determinations for clear error, or plain error if not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit against loss for canceled purchases | Falcon seeks reduction via credit for 16 canceled agreements. | No credit since no return of property/money and no initial loss shown. | No plain error; district court did not err in loss calculation. |
| Plain error and invited error in loss calculation | Falcon argued the loss amount should be zero. | The district court’s calculation based on loans is permissible. | Invited error doctrine applied; even if not invited, no plain error; loss based on loans upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 2006) (review of loss determinations)
- United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review when not preserved)
- United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2006) (no plain error without direct precedent)
- United States v. Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997) (relevant conduct and loss calculation framework)
- United States v. Maxwell, 34 F.3d 1006 (11th Cir. 1994) (same course of conduct for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 881 (11th Cir. 2005) (credit against loss and collateral considerations)
- United States v. Miller, 188 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (courts may reasonably estimate loss)
- United States v. Menichino, 989 F.2d 438 (11th Cir. 1993) (intent to cause a loss shown by inducing risk to lender)
- United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2006) (invited-error doctrine in sentencing)
- United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (invited-error doctrine application guidance)