UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT EDWARD WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (CR-04-70001)
Submitted: November 2, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Sanzone, SANZONE & BAKER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennie L. M.
Waering, Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah J. Beatty, Third-
Year Practice Law Student, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Edward Williams, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed
following his conviction for altering money orders in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 500, 2 (2000); forging securities in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 513(a), 2 (2000); credit card fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1029(a), 2 (2000); mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1341, 2 (2000); and conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). Williams was sentenced to fifty-one
months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $82,833.55 in
restitution.* Williams alleges that the district court erred in
including a debt of $17,687.71 on a First USA credit card in the
calculation of the amount of loss under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 2B1.1 (2004) because the evidence was insufficient to
support a finding of fraud as to that amount. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
In fraud cases, the Government bears the burden of
proving the amount of loss for sentencing purposes by a
preponderance of evidence. United States v. Pierce, 409 F.3d 228,
234 (4th Cir. 2005). With respect to sentencing, the district
court makes a “reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available
information.” United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir.
2003). Here, the Government met its burden by introducing
*
The sentence was imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision
in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and the district
court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in an advisory
manner.
- 2 -
documentary evidence regarding the amount of loss from First USA,
and establishing through testimonial evidence the connection
between the losses sustained and Williams’s use of the credit card
at issue. The district court fairly relied on this information in
its assessment of the loss amount. We therefore find that a
preponderance of evidence supports the Government’s allegation
regarding the amount of loss, and that the district court did not
make an unreasonable estimate of the loss.
We affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -