United States v. April Castro

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 16, 2019
• Docket: 19-10292
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-10292 Document: 00515238355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 19-10292 December 16, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

APRIL CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CR-64-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * April Castro appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea convictions for uttering and possessing forged and counterfeit securities of an organization and possession of stolen mail. Castro contends that the district court erred in calculating the intended loss under the advisory guidelines. In particular, she contends that the district court erred by using the average value of the forged blank checks and the pre-prepared checks in

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-10292 Document: 00515238355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2019

No. 19-10292

assigning a value to the 479 blank checks and money orders found in her possession at the time of her arrest. Castro contends that including the value of the pre-prepared checks inflated the intended loss estimate, thereby resulting in an unreasonable loss calculation in light of the record. The district court’s method of calculating loss under the Guidelines is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. United States v. Lige, 635 F.3d 668, 671 (5th Cir. 2011). “The district court receives wide latitude to determine the amount of loss and should make a reasonable estimate based on available information.” United States v. Jones, 475 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2007); see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)). We have previously approved the use of averages in estimating intended loss. See United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1101 (5th Cir. 1993). Castro has not shown that the district court erred in the methodology used to calculate the intended loss. See id. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.