The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the wire fraud sentence of Omar Loaces Gonzalez, rejecting his challenge to both the application of federal sentencing guidelines and the substantive reasonableness of his punishment for defrauding COVID-19 relief programs.
In a per curiam opinion filed Jan. 6, 2026, the three-judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court's sentencing decision in *United States v. Omar Loaces Gonzalez* (11th Cir. 2026). The case involved fraud against two federal programs created during the pandemic: the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.
Loaces pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. section 1343 for his scheme to defraud the COVID-19 relief programs. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Judge [name] presided over the proceedings.
According to court documents, Loaces intended to steal $342,877 from the federal programs but actually obtained $210,832. The probation officer's presentence investigation report used the intended loss amount of $342,877 to calculate the appropriate sentence enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines.
The probation officer applied a 12-level enhancement to Loaces's offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines section 2B1.1, which governs fraud and deceit offenses. This enhancement was based on the intended loss amount rather than the actual loss suffered by the government.
Loaces's criminal history category was determined to be I, reflecting his prior convictions for grand theft of a motor vehicle, unlawful conveyance of fuel in a non-commercial vehicle, and operating a commercial vehicle without proper authorization. Despite these prior offenses, he qualified for the lowest criminal history category under the guidelines.
On appeal, Loaces raised two main arguments challenging his sentence. First, he contended that the district court incorrectly applied the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his offense level. Second, he argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable given the circumstances of his case.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of Circuit Judges Luck, Lagoa, and Wilson, reviewed these arguments under established precedent governing sentencing appeals. The court conducted what it characterized as "careful consideration" of Loaces's challenges to both the guidelines calculation and the overall reasonableness of his sentence.
The appeals court's decision to affirm suggests that the district court properly applied the relevant sentencing guidelines, particularly the loss calculation methodology under section 2B1.1. This provision typically requires courts to consider the intended loss amount when it exceeds the actual loss, which appeared to be the case in Loaces's scheme.
The affirmance also indicates that the Eleventh Circuit found the sentence fell within the range of reasonable punishments for this type of COVID-19 relief fraud. Federal courts have generally imposed significant sentences for pandemic relief fraud cases, reflecting the seriousness of exploiting emergency programs designed to help struggling businesses and individuals.
The case adds to the growing body of appellate precedent addressing COVID-19 relief fraud prosecutions. Federal prosecutors have pursued thousands of cases involving fraudulent applications to the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, which collectively distributed hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency aid.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision demonstrates continued judicial support for aggressive prosecution of pandemic relief fraud. Courts have generally rejected challenges to sentences in these cases, particularly when defendants attempted to steal substantial amounts from the federal programs.
The wire fraud statute under which Loaces was convicted carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and substantial fines. The actual sentence imposed in his case was not detailed in the available portions of the appellate opinion, but the court's affirmance suggests it fell within guideline recommendations or was otherwise reasonable.
This case reflects broader enforcement efforts by federal prosecutors targeting individuals who exploited emergency COVID-19 relief programs. The Department of Justice has made pandemic relief fraud prosecution a priority, establishing specialized task forces to investigate and prosecute these cases across the country.
The Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction includes Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, where prosecutors have filed numerous COVID-19 relief fraud cases. The court's affirmance in Loaces's case provides guidance for future appeals in similar prosecutions within the circuit.
The decision also reinforces the principle that appellate courts generally defer to district court sentencing decisions when they fall within reasonable bounds. This deference is particularly strong when defendants have pleaded guilty and the sentence reflects proper application of the federal sentencing guidelines.
For defense attorneys representing clients in similar cases, the decision underscores the difficulty of successfully challenging sentences in COVID-19 relief fraud prosecutions on appeal. Courts appear willing to impose substantial sentences that reflect the seriousness of defrauding emergency government programs during a national crisis.