DOJ-OGR-00009536.jpg

Case peneeeieees ememenees C085 ne acragenss of 117 Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 _ Filed 03/18/13 Page 12 of 41 into account, inter alia, the defendant’s own acts and omissions, see id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), as well as “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,” id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), and “all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions specified in subsection[ ] (a) (1) ... above, and all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions,” id. § 1B1.3(a)(3) (emphasis added). United States v. Reifler,446 F.3d 65, 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (alterations in original). See also United States v. Nash, 338 Fed. Appx. 96, 98, 2009 WL 2901565, at *1 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (rejecting defendant’s claim that he be held liable only for the fraudulent transactions in which he was directly involved; loss should be based on foreseeable loss from fraudulent scheme); United States v. Singh, 390 F.3d 168, 192 (2d Cir. 2004) (court upheld finding of full loss for sentencing guidelines purposes, despite some acquittals: “It matters not that various phases of the execution of the scheme were rejected by the jury for reason or reasons unknown. Singh’s opinions regarding the legality of his billing practices were rejected by the jury, which clearly found the existence of an overall fraudulent scheme.”); United States v. Zichittello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (upholding loss computations in RICO case: “As to the campaign finance scheme, Hartman is liable as a co-conspirator for ‘all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions’ in furtherance of the conspiracy. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Because there was evidence that Hartman was well aware of the larger scheme, the district court did not err in finding that Hartman was liable for the entire loss suffered by the NYCCFB.”); United States v. Senninger, 429 Fed. Appx. 762, 767, 2011 WL 2688988, at *4 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary order) (court upheld attributing full loss from mail fraud scheme to defraud the IRS and Colorado Department of Revenue; “[T]he court looked at the totality of Senninger’s involvement in that scheme, concluding her actions did not involve ‘simply filling in blanks on amended returns.’ The district court found Senninger ‘len[t] credibility to the entire operation. She lent her credibility as having been an IRS auditor to this operation, and she knew she 10 DOJ-OGR- 00009536