United States v. Martinez, No. 11-3547 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was found guilty of conspiring to commit bank fraud, committing bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. On appeal, the Government challenged the district court's decisions to use defendant's gain, instead of the actual or intended loss, for purposes of calculating the advisory sentencing guidelines range and to not order plaintiff to pay restitution. The court affirmed the district court's loss analysis because it could not reasonably determine the value of the outstanding collateral, as it applied to actual and intended loss. Given the district court's concerns about the complexity of determining the extent of loss properly attributable to defendant's scheme, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion by declining to order restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. In sentencing defendant for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution, the district court did not err in using defendant's gain, rather than the intended or actual loss, for purposes of calculating the advisory guidelines range; district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663A(c)(3)(B) and declining to order restitution on the ground the calculation of the restitution would be overly burdensome and complex.
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.