171327P.pdf   08/29/2018  United States  v.  Sienemah Gaye
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-1327
                          and No:  17-1347
                          and No:  17-1496
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Murphy, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. This opinion is issued by Chief Judge Smith 
   and Judge Colloton pursuant to 8th Cir. 47E. Under the terms of the plea 
   agreement, the government could offer defendant Gaye's proffer interview 
   at sentencing for the limited purpose of rebutting his denial of many of 
   the facts in the Presentence Report; no error in increasing Gaye's offense 
   level under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; no error in 
   denying Gaye the third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility; 
   the district court properly calculated the loss amount for Gaye in this 
   bank fraud scheme; no error in increasing Gaye's offense level under 
   Guideline Sec. 3B1.1 for organizer of leader role in the offense; no error 
   in increasing Gaye's offense level under Guideline Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) 
   for use of sophisticated means; Gaye's 144-month sentence was not 
   substantively unreasonable; no error in calculating the amount of loss for 
   defendant Fillie; no error in increasing Fillie's offense level under 
   Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) for ten or more victims of the offense; 
   no error in imposing a manager of supervisor enhancement under Guidelines 
   Sec. 3B1.1(b) for Fillie; no error in increasing Fillie's offense level 
   for sophisticated means; Fillie's criminal history score was properly 
   calculated; Fillie's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; Fillie's 
   restitution order affirmed as it reflected the actual loss suffered by the 
   victims of the scheme; the court was not bound by the amount agreed upon 
   by the parties and Fillie, in any event, repudiated the agreement by 
   arguing for a lower amount at sentencing; the district court correctly 
   determined the amount of loss attributable to defendant Sumoso; without 
   evidence that Sumoso affirmatively withdrew from this multi-year 
   conspiracy, it remained foreseeable to him that his co-conspirators would 
   continue the scheme without his assistance.