USA V. LEONARD BERNOT, No. 14-10569 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 27 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 14-10569 15-10184 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-4 v. LEONARD BERNOT, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 13, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge. Leonard Bernot appeals his sentence for conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. He challenges the application of a vulnerable victim * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. enhancement and the imposition of restitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 1. A two-level sentencing enhancement may be imposed if the defendant “knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). The district court properly found that Bernot’s “reasonably foreseeable” victims included the Garfinkles, see United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2010), and that these homeowners were particularly vulnerable compared to other victims of mail fraud, see United States v. Mendoza, 262 F.3d 957, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2001). 2. The district court correctly calculated the Guideline range of 37 to 46 months and articulated the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that it considered, including avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities, which support the 18-month sentence imposed. 3. The district court properly used the value of the victims’ lost equity in their home, $316,744.79, as the amount of restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(i). Bernot is not entitled to a credit against the restitution for the down payment he made on the house. See id. 4. The district court did not clearly err in ordering immediate repayment, which is the default for restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1). Bernot did not 2 object to immediate repayment at sentencing, nor does he argue on appeal that he is unable to make immediate repayment. AFFIRMED. 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.
