United States v. Diaz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 23-30751
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-30751 Document: 93-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED No. 23-30751 January 21, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Glenn E. Diaz,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:21-CR-179-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * With his friends’ help, Glenn Diaz obtained loans from now-defunct First NBC Bank (“FNBC”) using fabricated documents and phony transactions. A jury convicted him of bank-fraud and money-laundering offenses. Diaz now raises evidentiary, sentencing, and restitution-based challenges on appeal. We see no error and thus affirm.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-30751 Document: 93-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2025

No. 23-30751

Diaz challenges two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, claiming that they violated various constitutional rights. But the record cuts against him. The district court justifiably limited the extent to which he could cross-examine William Bennett. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. And the court followed applicable law in prohibiting evidence and argumentation about FNBC’s negligence. See United States v. Kreimer, 609 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir. 1980). See also Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 362–63 (2014). Diaz next challenges the length of his sentence. Yet the district court calculated his base offense level correctly. 1 The record reveals that Diaz was indifferent to loan repayment and that FNBC’s ability to collect was speculative. So it was appropriate to use a non-zero intended-loss calculation without deducting collateral value. See United States v. Goss, 549 F.3d 1013, 1017–18 (5th Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Henderson, 19 F.3d 917, 928 (5th Cir. 1994). And we see no problem with basing that calculation on loss stemming from conspiracy-related conduct. See United States v. Reinhart, 357 F.3d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 2004). The court also did not commit clear error in applying the “sophisticated means” enhancement. See United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 695 (5th Cir. 2013). Lastly, Diaz challenges the amount he owes in restitution. But the district court read the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act correctly. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(j)(1). Republic Credit One LP was thus entitled to restitution. And the court did not err in basing Diaz’s total restitution amount on the conduct underlying his conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Chaney, 964 F.2d 437, 451–52 (5th Cir. 1992).

_____________________ 1 Diaz waived one issue at oral argument—whether the district court was permitted to increase his offense level based on the amount of “loss” he “intended” to cause. See Oral Arg. 12:57–13:47. We thus refrain from addressing that issue here.

2 Case: 23-30751 Document: 93-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2025

We affirm.