## Facts

- Afuhia Masiu Manatau ran an identity-theft-based check-kiting scheme involving stolen social security numbers, credit cards, and “convenience checks” tied to credit lines.
- In one incident, police found Manatau with stolen convenience checks and a credit card statement showing a credit limit exceeding $30,000.
- In a second incident, convenience checks were stolen from another victim; the account’s credit limit exceeded $10,000, but there was no evidence Manatau knew that limit.
- Before being apprehended in the second incident, Manatau cashed both available checks for just over $1,800 and had no additional checks remaining.
- Manatau pleaded guilty to bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
- At sentencing, the government urged that “intended loss” equaled the combined credit limits (over $60,000), while Manatau argued the record did not show he aimed to obtain the full limits.

## Issues

1. Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, does “intended loss” include losses a defendant knew or reasonably should have known could occur, or only losses the defendant purposely sought to cause?
2. May a sentencing court treat the full credit limits on stolen accounts as “intended loss” absent evidence the defendant meant to obtain those full amounts?

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held that “intended loss” requires a purpose-based mental state: the loss must have been an object of the defendant’s purpose.
- The district court erred by equating intended loss with potential losses tied to credit limits without findings that Manatau aimed to inflict those amounts.
- The court directed the district court to apply the correct purpose standard and make record-based findings as to what loss Manatau intended.

## Legal Principles

- “Intended loss” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 means pecuniary harm the defendant purposely sought to inflict, not harm that was merely possible, foreseeable, or within the defendant’s knowledge.
- Intended loss may include losses the defendant meant to cause even if they were unlikely or impossible to achieve, but the focus remains on subjective purpose.
- A sentencing court may not automatically use maximum credit exposure (such as full credit limits) as intended loss; the government must support the amount with evidence of the defendant’s aim.
- Intended-loss findings must be grounded in case-specific facts (e.g., what the defendant knew about available credit and what conduct shows an effort to obtain particular amounts).

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit required that intended loss for fraud sentencing reflect the loss the defendant meant to bring about, not the maximum loss that could have occurred based on available credit, and it vacated Manatau’s sentence because the district court used an incorrect, non-purpose-based standard.


United States v. Manatau, 647 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2011)