United States v. George, 949 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2020). The 6-level enhancement at §2B1.1(b)(2)(C) for offenses that “resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims” applied where the court determined that the victims suffered losses that were significant in light of the victims’ individual financial circumstances. In addition, the court is not required to identify each specific victim and may reasonably infer a pattern from evidence on “enough” of the victims.
United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2020). The court misstated the number of offense levels resulting from §2B1.1(b)(J) (loss more than $3.5 million) as 18 instead of 16. This misstatement did not constitute plain error because the total number of offense levels awarded reflected the correct number of offense levels for loss.
United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2020). A state government agency is a victim for purposes of §2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)’s number-of-victims enhancement if the agency’s losses are included in the actual loss table §2B1.1(b)(1).
United States v. Gainza, 982 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2020). In a fraud offense involving skimmers installed in ATMs, it was clear error to conclude, without proof of the skimmers’ success rate, that defendants obtained account information from all ATM users. The erroneous finding could not support a 12-level loss-amount increase at §2B1.1(b)(1).