The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the mail fraud conviction and 48-month prison sentence of Ali Mif Bey, who operated under multiple aliases including Richard Lewis Miffin Jr. and Noble Ali Bey. The court issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on Jan. 27, rejecting Bey's challenge to how federal sentencing guidelines calculated the financial loss in his case.
Bey pleaded guilty to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case was heard before District Judge David J. Novak, who sentenced Bey to four years in federal prison.
The central issue on appeal concerned how courts should calculate loss amounts under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1. At sentencing, Bey objected to the district court's loss calculation because it was based on the intended loss rather than the actual loss arising from his fraud scheme. This distinction proved significant because using intended loss resulted in a substantial increase to his offense level under the sentencing guidelines.
Bey argued that the plain meaning of "loss" in § 2B1.1 refers to actual loss, and therefore courts should not consult the guidelines commentary that allows for intended loss calculations. His legal team from the Federal Public Defender's office, led by Geremy C. Kamens and Assistant Federal Public DefenderJoseph S. Camden, maintained this position throughout the proceedings.
However, District Judge Novak overruled Bey's objection, citing the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in *United States v. Boler*, 115 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2024). The *Boler* case apparently established precedent allowing courts to use intended loss rather than actual loss in sentencing calculations for fraud cases.
On appeal, Bey continued to dispute the calculation of his guidelines range using intended loss rather than actual loss. The defendant maintained that courts should interpret "loss" according to its plain meaning, which he argued refers only to actual financial harm that occurred.
The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Agee, Richardson, and Heytens, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The appeals court issued its ruling as an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning all three judges agreed on the outcome without a single author taking credit for the decision.
Unpublished opinions like this one do not create binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit, though they can provide guidance on how courts apply existing law. The quick turnaround from submission to decision—just five days from Jan. 22 to Jan. 27—suggests the panel viewed the legal issues as straightforward given existing circuit precedent.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in federal sentencing over how to measure financial harm in fraud cases. While actual loss represents money or property that defendants actually obtained or caused victims to lose, intended loss encompasses the full scope of what defendants planned to steal or the maximum potential harm from their schemes.
This distinction can dramatically affect sentences because the sentencing guidelines impose harsher penalties based on loss amounts. Higher loss calculations result in increased offense levels, which translate to longer recommended prison terms under the guidelines framework.
Federal prosecutors, represented by U.S. Attorney Erik S. Siebert and Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas A. Garnett, successfully defended the district court's approach. Their position aligned with the Fourth Circuit's precedent in *Boler*, which apparently resolved similar challenges to intended loss calculations.
The case also illustrates the complexity that can arise when defendants use multiple aliases, as Bey did with his various names. While the court documents do not detail how the aliases factored into the fraud scheme, such practices often complicate investigations and can affect how courts assess the scope and sophistication of criminal conduct.
Bey's 48-month sentence falls within the typical range for federal mail fraud convictions, though the exact guidelines calculation and any departures from the recommended range are not detailed in the available court documents. Mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison, making Bey's four-year term relatively modest within the potential sentencing range.
The affirmance means Bey will serve his full sentence unless he pursues further appeals to the Supreme Court, which rarely grants review in routine sentencing cases. The case adds to the Fourth Circuit's body of precedent supporting the use of intended loss calculations in fraud sentencing, reinforcing the approach established in *Boler* and similar cases.
For defense attorneys handling federal fraud cases in the Fourth Circuit, the decision confirms that challenges to intended loss calculations face an uphill battle given established circuit precedent. The ruling suggests courts will continue applying sentencing enhancements based on the full scope of defendants' intended criminal schemes rather than limiting calculations to proven actual losses.