USA v. Mancini, 10-1178.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-1178.,10-1178. |
| Citation | 624 F.3d 879 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo MANCINI, III, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Katherine M. Menendez, AFPD, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
David P. Steinkamp, AUSA, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Angelo Mancini pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for material misstatements made in a mortgage application. At sentencing, the district court 1 found that Mancini's offense had resulted in a total loss of $44,200 to Mortgage Guarantee Insurance Corporation (Mortgage Guarantee). This loss amount increased Mancini's offense level by six levels, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), resulting in an advisory guideline range of twelve to eighteen months. The court sentenced Mancini to twelve months and one day and ordered him to pay restitution of $44,200. Mancini appeals the district court's sentence and restitution order. We affirm.
In September 2006, Mancini, then a loan officer with City Mortgage in St. Paul, Minnesota, applied for a mortgage refinance loan through City Mortgage on a rental property he owned. Mancini falsely stated on the mortgage application that he was employed by Ohlson Landscaping in St. Paul as a Landscaping Manager and that his income was $4,760 per month. He had actually only worked part time at Ohlson Landscaping and had earned approximately $2,000 the entire time he worked for the company. The loan was approved, and in November 2006 the lender disbursed $165,750 in loan funds.
Mancini became delinquent in his payments and the rental property was foreclosed in January 2008. At the time of the foreclosure, Mancini owed about $183,900 on the property. The property was sold for $121,550, resulting in a loss to the lender of $62,350. After a reduction for fees, penalties, and interest, the net loss to the lender was $44,200. Mancini's mortgage insurance company, Mortgage Guarantee, paid the lender $44,200.
Mancini was charged with and pled guilty to wire fraud based on the false statements he had made in the mortgage application. At sentencing the government requested a loss and restitution amount of $44,200. Mancini requested a loss and restitution amount of zero, arguing that the only victim of his wire fraud was the mortgage lender and that the lender had been made whole by the payment from his insurer. The district court rejected Mancini's argument, found that both the mortgage lender and insurer were victims of his offense, and determined the loss amount to be $44,200. The court sentenced Mancini to twelve months and one day and ordered him to pay Mortgage Guarantee $44,200 in restitution. Mancini appeals both actions.
On appeal, Mancini challenges the district court's loss calculation, arguing that Mortgage Guarantee should not have been considered a victim of his offense for the purpose of loss determination and sentencing. We review a district court's interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its loss calculation for clear error. United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 560, 565 (8th Cir.2009). We will affirm the court's loss determination “unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, was based on an erroneous view of the law, or [we have] a firm conviction that there was a mistake after reviewing the entire record.” United States v. Hodge, 588 F.3d 970, 973 (8th Cir.2009).
Although we have not yet had occasion to address the situation presented here, the First, Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have all concluded that loss resulting from a mortgage fraud includes loss to the mortgage insurer. These courts agree in the principle that “[t]he loss to the insurance company is ... a direct loss that [is] properly included within the loss calculations.” United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62, 87 (3d Cir.2008), because “insurance simply shifts the loss to another victim (the insurance company).” United States v. Alegria, 192 F.3d 179, 191 (1st Cir.1999); see also United States v. Castellano, 349 F.3d 483, 484 (7th Cir.2003); United States v. Daniels, 148 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam).
The approach taken by these courts and followed below is consistent with the guidelines, which define a “victim” for the purpose of calculating loss as “any person who sustained any part of actual loss determined under subsection (b)(1).” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n. 1. “Actual loss” is defined as “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense,” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n. 3(A)(i), harm that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Louper-Morris
...18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A–3664, requires individuals who are convicted of wire fraud to pay restitution to their victims. United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879, 882 (8th Cir.2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) (ordering mandatory restitution for victims of “an offense against property under thi......
-
United States v. Alexander
...balance of a mortgaged property and the subsequent sale price of the property. See McKanry, 628 F.3d at 1019;United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879, 881–82 (8th Cir.2010). The district court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount of loss was greater than $70,000 based......
-
United States v. Antonio
...insurer where a victim receivescompensation for its losses from that insurer . . . .")(alteration added)(citing United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879, 882 (8th Cir. 2010)). In this case, Doe is indisputably a victim within the MVRA's wording. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1). The question, therefore......
-
USA v. Moore
...on by a prior unwarranted arrest for forgery, caused him to sell crack cocaine. For the most part, these contentions (or variations 624 F.3d 879thereof) were raised and rejected in his initial appeal. See Moore, 470 F.3d at 769-70. In any event, we conclude they are without merit. See Unite......