context: Here, because there was no evidence that Okolo attempted to conceal or hide the collateral, the banks could reasonably expect to recover the value of the vehicles securing the loans. We therefore find that the value of the vehicles should have been deducted from the unpaid balances of the loans to determine the amount of the loss.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 292 F.3d 681, 686
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding use of full amount of car loan as intended loss where defendant attempted to conceal the vehicle, but reversing use of full value of loan for tools where "there is no evidence that Mr. Williams intended to conceal the tools"
citation_a.sentence: Id.; see United States v. Baum, 974 F.2d 496, 498 (4th Cir.1992) (reversing district court’s determination that amount of loss was equal to face amount of fraudulently obtained loan and requiring that “value of the security interest should be deducted from the amount of the loan in determin ing ‘loss’ ” and payments on loans “should also be considered”); see also United States v. Williams, 292 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir.2002) (upholding use of full amount of car loan as intended loss where defendant attempted to conceal the vehicle, but reversing use of full value of loan for tools where “there is no evidence that Mr. Williams intended to conceal the tools”); United States v. Nichols, 229 F.3d 975, 979 (10th Cir.2000) (finding determination of loss as full amount of loan “clearly erroneous” where loan secured by collateral and there was no evidence “that the Defendant intended to permanently deprive the creditor of the collateral through concealment”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 974 F.2d 496, 498
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing district court's determination that amount of loss was equal to face amount of fraudulently obtained loan and requiring that "value of the security interest should be deducted from the amount of the loan in determin ing 'loss' " and payments on loans "should also be considered"
citation_b.sentence: Id.; see United States v. Baum, 974 F.2d 496, 498 (4th Cir.1992) (reversing district court’s determination that amount of loss was equal to face amount of fraudulently obtained loan and requiring that “value of the security interest should be deducted from the amount of the loan in determin ing ‘loss’ ” and payments on loans “should also be considered”); see also United States v. Williams, 292 F.3d 681, 686 (10th Cir.2002) (upholding use of full amount of car loan as intended loss where defendant attempted to conceal the vehicle, but reversing use of full value of loan for tools where “there is no evidence that Mr. Williams intended to conceal the tools”); United States v. Nichols, 229 F.3d 975, 979 (10th Cir.2000) (finding determination of loss as full amount of loan “clearly erroneous” where loan secured by collateral and there was no evidence “that the Defendant intended to permanently deprive the creditor of the collateral through concealment”).