United States v. Casey , 222 F. App'x 389 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 8, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-41237
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JAMEEL CASEY
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-254
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Without the benefit of a plea agreement, Jameel Casey
pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and
related activity in connection with computers. Casey was
sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and to a three-year term
of supervised release. Casey challenges the district court’s
loss determination. Specifically, he contends that the loss
determination should have been based on the “actual” loss to the
lending institutions instead of the “intended” loss.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-41237
-2-
The amount of loss is a factual finding reviewed for clear
error; the method by which losses are determined is reviewed de
novo. United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir.
2000). Due to his fraudulent actions, Casey helped customers
obtain loans that they would not otherwise have qualified. Casey
had no control over repaying the loans if the customers
defaulted. Consequently, due to his fraudulent actions, Casey
put the lending institutions at risk for the full line of credit
extended to the consumers. Thus, the district court did not err
in assessing Casey’s offense level based on the intended loss,
rather than the actual loss, figure of the full line of credit
extended by the lending institutions to the consumers. See
United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 301 (5th Cir. 1999);
United States v. Tedder, 81 F.3d 549, 551 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.