United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Frederick Mark Croft, Defendant-appellant, 98 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 98 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. *Decided Oct. 11, 1996

Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Frederick Mark Croft appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Croft contends that in adjusting his offense level upward under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b) (1) (J), the district court erred by including in its loss calculation the approximately $255,000 in transactions he attempted during Citibank's investigation of his fraud because Citibank immediately reversed his fraudulent payments to his ATM credit card accounts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Croft contends that the district court clearly erred by finding that he intended to cause the loss of the $255,000 because this total represented his attempt to make the same payment over and over again without success. The record shows that Croft continued to transfer fraudulently obtained funds to his savings account and to attempt to withdraw them after Citibank detected his scheme. Also, his unsuccessful payments were for different amounts. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Croft intended to inflict as much loss as possible. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n. 7); United States v. Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453, 1463 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting contention that loss amount was lower because defendant knew some of his fraudulent loan applications would be rejected).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.