United States v. Gary Duane Schultz ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3629
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Gary Duane Schultz,                     *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 16, 2003
    Filed: May 23, 2003
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Gary Duane Schultz pleaded guilty to mail fraud and money laundering, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1341
     and 1957, after he admitted that he used his executive
    positions at Lund Boats to defraud the company of more than $14,000,000. At
    sentencing, the district court1 applied a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
    § 2F1.1(b)(8)(B) (2000), specifically finding that Shultz’s conduct “affected”
    1
    The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota.
    financial institutions--namely, Farmers and Merchants State Bank (F&M) and Dain
    Rauscher Investment Services (Dain)--because Lund Boats had filed a lawsuit against
    them in an attempt to recover money taken by Schultz. The court sentenced Schultz
    to concurrent terms of 63 months imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that the court
    should not have applied the enhancement because F&M and Dain had not lost money
    in the as-yet undecided civil lawsuit, and were neither victimized nor directly affected
    by the offense.
    Upon our de novo review, see United States v. Collins, 
    104 F.3d 143
    , 144 (8th
    Cir. 1997), we believe that the district court properly applied the enhancement. It is
    undisputed that Lund Boat’s civil lawsuit against F&M and Dain resulted from the
    fraud, and the lawsuit appears to have realistically exposed them to substantial
    potential liability and legal expenses. See United States v. Schinnell, 
    80 F.3d 1064
    ,
    1069-70 (5th Cir. 1996) (fraud perpetrated against customer of financial institution
    affected that institution where fraud “realistically exposed [it] to substantial potential
    liability”); see also United States v. Johnson, 
    130 F.3d 1352
    , 1355 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (fraud “affected” bank where bank suffered unreimbursed financial losses, including
    legal expenses).
    The judgment is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3629

Judges: Wollman, Fagg, Hansen

Filed Date: 5/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024