USA v. McClellon – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court properly included intended loss in its calculation under United States Sentencing Guidelines section one B one point three.
Standard: de novo review of Sentencing Guidelines interpretation
Vote: Unpublished memorandum decision by a three-judge panel.
Practical effect: This decision clarifies that intended loss is a valid component of loss calculations for fraud offenses under the relevant conduct guideline, even when the specific loss was not realized.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence of a defendant convicted of wire and bank fraud involving false Paycheck Protection Program loan applications. The court held that the district court properly included intended loss in its calculation under the relevant conduct guideline.

Background

Donte McClellon was convicted by a jury of three counts of wire fraud and two counts of bank fraud for obtaining Paycheck Protection Program loans using false information. He was sentenced to forty-two months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. McClellon appealed, arguing that the district court erred by including intended loss in its loss calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that United States Sentencing Guidelines section one B one point three incorporates the concept of intended loss by requiring courts to consider all harm that was the object of the defendant’s acts. The court found that McClellon’s object in applying for the loans was to obtain the loan amounts, and he took substantial steps toward that object by submitting false information. Therefore, the district court did not err in including the intended loss associated with the loans in the calculation.

What it means going forward

This decision clarifies that intended loss is a valid component of loss calculations for fraud offenses under the relevant conduct guideline, even when the specific loss was not realized.