United States v. Vincent Duckett

60 F. App'x 648
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2003
Docket02-3425
StatusUnpublished

This text of 60 F. App'x 648 (United States v. Vincent Duckett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Vincent Duckett, 60 F. App'x 648 (8th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER curiam:.

Vincent Leon Duckett pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and utter counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and restitution of $207,488. On appeal, Duckett argues that the district court erred in including in the amount of loss altered cashier’s checks totaling more than $4,000,000, because they could not have been negotiated and thus could not have resulted in actual loss. In the alternative, he argues that he should have received a 3-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 (1995), because the greater loss was merely attempted and not completed. After careful review of the record, we reject Duckett’s arguments, and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in determining the amount of loss. See United States v. Oligmueller, 198 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). Regardless of whether the checks could have been negotiated successfully, the evidence at sentencing indicated Duckett intended that they result in additional losses. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment, (n.7) (1995) (if intended loss that defendant was attempting to inflict can be determined, this figure will be used if it is greater than the actual loss). Further, a reduction under section 2X1.1 was not appropriate because the offense — conspiracy to possess forged securities — was completed, even if the loss was not inflicted. See 18 U.S.C. § 513(a); U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1, comment, (backg’d.) (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

1

. The HONORABLE JAMES M. MOODY, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. William J. Oligmueller
198 F.3d 669 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vincent-duckett-ca8-2003.