United States v. James Glen Jindra, 7 F.3d 113 (8th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Glen Jindra, 7 F.3d 113 (8th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc. (ca2, 2014-07-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Sept. 10, 2012) (citing Waldman, 207 7 F.3d at 113); see also Marcel Fashions Grp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William J. Oligmueller
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 App. Note 8(b); see also United States v. Brekke, 152 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Sheahan, 31 F.3d 595, 603 (8th Cir.1994), United States v. Jindra, 7 F.3d 113, 114 (8th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Oligmueller
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 App. Note 8(b); see also United States v. Brekke, 152 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Sheahan, 31 F.3d 595, 603 (8th Cir. 1994), United States v. Jindra, 7 F.3d 113, 114 (8th Cir. 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Atkinson
4th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See United States v. Lucas, 99 F.3d 1290, 1299 (a defendant cannot be permitted under the Guidelines to avoid an increase for amount of loss in a fraud scheme simply by being financially capable of repaying the money when discovered); United States v. Sparks, 88 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1996) (bank loan officer who made a series of fraudulent loans in the names of various third parties for the purpose of benefiting himself not allowed to deduct payments made after discovery of the fraud because the bank had no realistic expectation of immediate recovery at that point); United States v. Bennett, 37 F…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Parker Wright, Jr. (2×)
6th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See United States v. Bennett, 37 F.3d 687, 695 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that the district court erred in reducing the loss by the amount repaid as part of a civil settlement after discovery); United States v. Mummert, 34 F.3d 201, 204 (3d Cir.1994) ("A defendant in a fraud case should not be able to reduce the amount of loss for sentencing purposes by offering to make restitution after being caught."); United States v. Jindra, 7 F.3d 113, 113-14 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that the loss could not be reduced by unpledged amounts recovered after discovery and before sentencing), cert. denied, --- U.S…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bennett
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Jindra, 7 F.3d 113, 114 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that, in light of Application Note 7(b), the loss was the amount of the loans outstanding when the offense was discovered because the defendant did not pledge assets to secure the loans), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 888 , 127 L.Ed.2d 82 (1994); United States v. Menichino, 989 F.2d 438, 441 (11th Cir.1993) (“[I]n a loan application case involving misrepresentation of assets, the loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the *696 offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lender could recover fro…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bennett
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. ____ _____________ Jindra, 7 F.3d 113, 114 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that, in ______ light of Application Note 7(b), the loss was the amount of the loans outstanding when the offense was discovered because the defendant did not pledge assets to secure the loans), cert. denied, U.S. , 114 S. Ct. 888 , 127 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
James Glen JINDRA, Appellant
93-1942.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 5, 1993.
7 F.3d 113
Joel C. Golden, Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellant., John M. Lee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, MN, argued, for appellee.
McMillian, Hansen, Arnold.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

James Glen Jindra appeals the 18-month sentence imposed by the district court [1] following his guilty plea to bank fraud. We affirm.

A grand jury returned a seven-count indictment charging Jindra with engaging in a scheme to defraud six Minnesota banks of $2.6 million between November 1, 1989, and October 1, 1991, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jin-dra pleaded guilty to Count I of the indictment, and the government agreed to dismiss Counts II through VII. The plea agreement contained several sentencing stipulations, but the parties did not agree on the amount of the loss. The government maintained that the loss was between $500,000 and $800,000, requiring a ten-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(E). Jindra argued that the loss was under $500,000.

Applying U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment, (n. 7(b)), the presentenee report (PSR) calculated the amount of the loss as $765,000. This figure reflected the amount outstanding at the time the offense was discovered and the amount for which Jindra had pledged no assets to secure the loans. Thus, the PSR recommended a ten-level increase. Jindra objected to the loss calculation, arguing that the amount of the loss should not be fixed at the time the offense was discovered, but should be adjusted to reflect amounts the victim banks recovered before sentencing. Under Jindra’s calculation, the amount of the loss would be $47,900, resulting in a five-level, rather than a ten-level, increase. Following a hearing, the district court adopted the PSR’s loss calculation, found Jindra’s sentencing range to be 18 to 24 months, and sentenced Jindra to 18 months. On appeal, Jindra argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines by refusing to deduct from the total loss calculation amounts recovered by the victim banks before sentencing.

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and commentary de novo. United States v. Mills, 987 F.2d 1311, 1315-16 (8th Cir.1993). Section 2F1.1, com[*114] ment' (n.7(b)), governs the loss calculation in this case, and provides in relevant part:

In fraudulent loan application cases ..., the loss is the actual loss to the victim (or if the loss has not yet come about, the expected loss). For example, if a defendant fraudulently obtains a loan by misrepresenting the value of his assets, the loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time .the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets pledged to secure the loan. However, where the intended loss is greater than the actual loss, the intended loss is to be used.

Application Note 7(b) thus directs that the amount of the loss is “the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the offense is discovered.” Further, Application Note 7(b) directs that the amount of the loss may be “reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered ... from any assets pledged to secure the loan.” Because Jindra did not pledge assets to secure the loans at issue here, the “loss” is the amount of the loans outstanding at the time the offense was discovered. The district court thus committed no error in ruling that the amount of the loss was $765,000.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.