## Facts

- Martin Geevers carried out a check-kiting scheme by depositing worthless checks to inflate balances across multiple bank accounts and withdrawing funds against those inflated balances.
- He was charged with bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and pleaded guilty to one count.
- The banks’ actual loss was substantially less than the aggregate face value of the deposited worthless checks.
- Applying U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, the district court treated the intended loss as the total face amount of the worthless checks and enhanced the offense level accordingly.
- Geevers appealed only his sentence, arguing the intended-loss figure was improperly calculated and that he should receive a reduction for an incomplete attempt.

## Issues

1. In a check-kiting scheme, may a sentencing court treat the full face amount of worthless checks as “intended loss” under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 when actual loss is lower and the defendant claims he could not realistically obtain the full amount?
2. If intended loss is based on face value, is the defendant entitled to a three-level reduction on the theory that the fraud was an incomplete “attempt”?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the sentence.
- The court held that the face value of the worthless checks may be used as a reasonable estimate of intended loss under a rebuttable presumption when the defendant offers insufficient evidence of a lower intended loss.
- The court rejected an “attempt” reduction because the defendant completed the substantive bank fraud offense; partial failure to obtain all desired proceeds did not convert the offense into an attempt.

## Legal Principles

- Under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss when intended loss can be determined.
- Intended loss can be inferred from objective conduct; a defendant may intend a loss greater than he reasonably expects to achieve.
- Loss calculations under the Guidelines may be approximations and “need not be determined with precision.”
- Once the government presents prima facie evidence of a loss amount (such as the aggregate face value of fraudulent checks), the burden of production may shift to the defendant to present evidence rebutting that figure; the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
- A completed fraud offense is not treated as an attempt for guideline purposes merely because the defendant did not achieve the full amount sought; intended-loss analysis already captures incomplete success.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a bank-fraud sentence that used the aggregate face value of worthless checks as intended loss under a rebuttable presumption and held that a defendant who executed the fraud could not obtain an additional attempt-based reduction simply because he failed to realize the scheme’s full potential proceeds.


United States v. Geevers, 226 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2000)