UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, NO. 12-3328-cr (2D CIR. FEB. 3, 2014) (POOLER, RAGGI, AND SCHOFIELD) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
Post-conviction for wire fraud and bank fraud, the defendant in this appeal challenged his sentence as procedurally unreasonable and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to his intent to commit bank fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court calculated the loss amount by taking 30 percent of the total mortgage price of certain properties purchased, including those by two co-defendants. Because the defendant never challenged the presentence report’s method of calculating loss and in his sentencing letter specifically contemplated guidelines that included losses incurred by the co-defendants, he waived any factual challenge on appeal. As to his sufficiency of the evidence claim, the defendant argued that the government failed to prove that the banks lost anything of value. The Court reconfirmed the Circuit’s reading of the bank fraud statute “expansively” and noted that the bank need not actually be victimized to violate the statute if the defendant acted with the necessary intent. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that he did and affirmed.