United States v. Hanna

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4514
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GARY HANNA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-04-344)
Submitted: January 27, 2006 Decided: March 8, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, William
E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina; Thomas E. Booth, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury found Gary Hanna guilty of twelve counts of wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2005), and
three counts of making a false statement to obtain a bank loan, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West Supp. 2005). On appeal,
Hanna contends the district court erred in enhancing his offense
level under the sentencing guidelines based upon intended loss
without taking into consideration that some of the funds were
recovered. Hanna further claims the court erred in enhancing his
offense level because some of the victims were unusually
vulnerable. Finding no error, we affirm.
We find no error in the district court’s decision to use
the intended loss rather than the actual loss in determining an
increase to the offense level. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2B1.1(b), comment. n.3(A) (2004). We further find no
error in the court declining to consider the amount of money
recovered by the various lending agencies. United States v.
Rothberg, 954 F.2d 217, 219 (4th Cir. 1992); see also United
States v. Staples, 410 F.3d 484, 490-91 (8th Cir. 2005).
We further find no error in the district court’s decision
to apply a two-level enhancement because some of the victims were
unusually vulnerable. See USSG § 3A1.1, comment. n.2.; see also
United States v. Hoogenboom, 209 F.3d 665, 670 (7th Cir. 2000).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -