United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Katherine Pappadopoulos, Defendant-appellant, 125 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Pappadopoulos argues that insufficient evidence supports the district court's finding that the "intended loss" exceeded $ 2.5 million. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b) (1) (N). The district court adopted the findings of the PSR, which used the policy limits for both the replacement cost of the house ($ 2.5 million) and its contents ($ 1.8 million). The government does not have to prove that "the loss the defendant intended to inflict be realistically possible." United States v. Robinson, 94 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the government proved that Pappadopoulos was guilty of insurance fraud, the policy limit for the replacement cost of the house was an appropriate figure to use. The policy limit for the contents policy was also an appropriate figure: The district court correctly identified evidence of Pappadopoulos' intent to commit fraud on the contents policy, such as videotaping the contents of the house shortly before the fire. Because these two figures by themselves support the district court's finding of "intended loss" in excess of $ 2.5 million, we need not address Pappadopoulos' remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.