# United States v. Harry W. Snyder, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2002 · 291 F.3d 1291

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415671

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Harry W. SNYDER, Jr., Renee Peugeot, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 21, 2002
- **Citations:** 291 F.3d 1291; 58 Fed. R. Serv. 1345; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9561; 2002 WL 1020639
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hill
- **Judges:** Edmondson, Hill, Lay
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415671

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial after prosecutor questioned witness about the defendant’s indictment
- stating that limiting victim class to those who bought stock after defendant’s fraudulent statements was an appropriate method of calculating loss

## Opinion text

HILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the panel opinion and add one further thought. The type of crime *1297 committed here tends to provide a relatively small and certain amount of expected gain .to defendants and a far larger and less certain loss to innocent investors throughout the market. Here the perpetrators seek something of value for themselves with reckless disregard for their faceless victims. The extent of their wrongdoing will usually greatly exceed what they hoped to derive from their nefarious conduct.
The district court, looking at the defendants’ expected gain, concluded that for sentencing purposes, the amount of loss attributable to the defendants was between $200,000 and $350,000. The government’s expert concludes that the loss impact upon investors was $34.4 million! The great difference in the two figures describes and defines the callousness of defendants who, in order to obtain relatively little, acted in utter disregard of the vast financial loss consequence they inflicted on so many. It is not appropriate therefore to limit sentencing consequences to defendants’ gain, thereby ignoring victims’ loss. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 9.
Of course, the estimated loss must not be based upon pure guesswork or speculation. If however, there is a good basis for a reasonable estimate, the sentencing court should tend to overlook fine-tuned objections demanding precise dollar and cent calculations of loss. Id. The opinion prepared for us by Judge Lay provides adequate direction to the district court empowering it to calculate the consequential loss to victims with reasonable certainty.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415671. Public record. Not legal advice.