Reliable PSR Controls Intended-Loss Findings and “Government-Agency” Fraud Enhancement Applies Even to a Non-Existent “Consulate” (Seventh Circuit)

1. Introduction

In United States v. Aziz Hassan Bey (7th Cir. July 17, 2026) (nonprecedential), the Seventh Circuit affirmed fraud-conspiracy convictions and below-Guidelines sentences for Aziz Hassan Bey and Minister Zakar Ali, who—along with two codefendants—represented themselves at a five-day jury trial. The case involved three related fraud schemes: (1) fraudulent COVID-relief loan applications (PPP/EIDL), (2) unemployment insurance (UI) fraud, and (3) vehicle-title/lien fraud.

The principal appellate disputes were sentencing-centric: Bey challenged the loss calculation driving the U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 enhancement and the two-level enhancement for misrepresenting that he acted on behalf of a government agency. Ali challenged various pretrial and trial issues, sufficiency of the evidence, restitution, role adjustment, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence—most of which the court treated as forfeited.

2. Summary of the Opinion

  • Loss amount: The district court did not clearly err in adopting the PSR’s intended-loss figure (nearly $11 million), triggering a 20-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). Bey failed to cast “real doubt” on the PSR’s reliability.
  • Government-role misrepresentation: The two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) properly applied to Bey’s claim of acting as a “diplomat” for the “Consulate of al Moroc,” even if the “consulate” was not an actual government agency.
  • Ali’s sentence: Ali’s below-Guidelines sentence (140 months) was affirmed as substantively reasonable; his appellate argument was deemed undeveloped.
  • Forfeiture and plain error: Ali forfeited multiple challenges by not raising them in the district court (including no Rule 29 motion and no restitution/sentencing objections), and he failed to establish plain error.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Although the disposition is nonprecedential, the panel’s reasoning is built from established Seventh Circuit doctrines—particularly around Guidelines factfinding, enhancement application, and forfeiture.

Loss and sentencing factfinding

  • United States v. Griffin, 76 F.4th 724 (7th Cir. 2023): The court relied on Griffin for (a) clear-error review of loss findings and (b) a burden-shifting framework: the government may satisfy its burden through a reliable PSR; the defendant must show inaccuracy; if the defendant casts “real doubt,” the burden shifts back to the government.
  • United States v. Ponle, 110 F.4th 958 (7th Cir. 2024): After defendants’ sentencing, Ponle clarified that courts use “the greater of the actual loss or intended loss,” quoting U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A). The panel noted Bey and Ali abandoned their earlier argument (based on the Third Circuit’s approach) that only actual loss should count.
  • United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 2022): Cited as the Third Circuit’s actual-loss approach that the district court declined to follow.
  • United States v. Salem, 597 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2010): Invoked for foreseeability in attributing co-conspirator loss; Ali’s attempt to avoid co-conspirator losses failed because the trial evidence showed significant involvement.

Enhancement for claiming government affiliation

  • United States v. Sunmola, 887 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2018): Used to frame § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) broadly—covering defendants who purport to act on behalf of a government agency for personal gain.

Standards of review and sentencing reasonableness

  • United States v. Cohen, 159 F.4th 1121 (7th Cir. 2025): Cited for de novo review of a preserved Guidelines issue and for forfeiture of Guidelines challenges not raised below.
  • United States v. Martin, 122 F.4th 286 (7th Cir. 2024): Cited for review of a sentencing reasonableness claim.
  • United States v. Guzman-Ramirez, 949 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2020): Supplies the principle that a within- or below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable.
  • United States v. Butler, 58 F.4th 364 (7th Cir. 2023): Applied to reject an undeveloped reasonableness challenge that fails to confront the presumption.
  • United States v. Washington, 178 F.4th 360 (7th Cir. 2026): Cited for the requirement that district courts address mitigating arguments and conduct an individualized § 3553(a) analysis—but the panel found Ali raised no mitigation at sentencing.

Forfeiture, plain error, and sufficiency

  • United States v. Wright, 85 F.4th 851 (7th Cir. 2023): Failure to move for acquittal under Rule 29 forfeits sufficiency challenges (triggering plain-error review).
  • United States v. Grusd, 164 F.4th 635 (7th Cir. 2026): Cited for forfeiture/plain-error framework concerning restitution.
  • United States v. Page, 123 F.4th 851 (7th Cir. 2024) (en banc): Quoted for the four-part plain-error standard.
  • United States v. Vizcarra-Millan, 15 F.4th 473 (7th Cir. 2021): Used (through Griffin) to emphasize the “nearly insurmountable hurdle” in sufficiency claims.
  • United States v. Hofschulz, 105 F.4th 923 (7th Cir. 2024): Reinforces deference to jury verdicts on sufficiency.
  • United States v. Gan, 54 F.4th 467 (7th Cir. 2022): Cited to correct Ali’s legal premise: a jury may acquit on conspiracy yet convict on substantive counts.
  • Harris, 102 F.4th at 852: Quoted for the reluctance to reverse on plain-error review when the claimed mistake would require a judge to sua sponte raise and resolve complex, fact-intensive matters.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(A) Loss calculation: PSR reliability and “real doubt”

The court affirmed the district court’s adoption of the PSR’s intended-loss totals (COVID-relief applications + UI fraud + vehicle-title fraud). The key move was methodological: once a PSR is “well-supported” and “reliable,” it can satisfy the government’s burden. The defendant must then show inaccuracy; merely pointing to a lower “actual loss” number from grand-jury testimony did not contradict the PSR’s intended-loss findings. Without evidence undermining the PSR’s reliability, there was no clear error in using the higher intended-loss figure for § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K).

(B) § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A): claiming governmental status, even if the “agency” is fake

Bey argued the “Consulate of al Moroc” was not a real foreign government agency, so the enhancement should not apply. The court rejected a formalistic approach and treated the enhancement as targeting the representation of governmental authority used to advance a fraud for personal gain. The panel analogized the situation to the Guidelines’ commentary example of soliciting donations for a “non-existent” famine relief organization, concluding there is no meaningful distinction between a non-existent charity and a non-existent government agency for enhancement purposes.

(C) Substantive reasonableness: presumption and record-based rebuttal

Ali’s below-Guidelines sentence carried a presumption of reasonableness. The panel found Ali’s challenge largely failed because it neither engaged with that presumption nor demonstrated why the district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors was unreasonable. Attempting to reframe the issue at oral argument as procedural error did not help: the district court cannot be faulted for failing to address mitigation that Ali did not actually present at sentencing.

(D) Forfeiture: pro se choices at trial have appellate consequences

The opinion underscores that self-representation does not relax preservation rules. Ali’s failure to file a Rule 29 motion forfeited his sufficiency challenge; failure to object to restitution and Guidelines issues in the district court triggered plain-error review. On that demanding standard, the panel found no obvious error—particularly where claimed mistakes would have required the district judge to undertake complex, transaction-by-transaction analyses without prompting.

3.3 Impact

  • Sentencing practice (loss): The decision reinforces a practical evidentiary point: defendants disputing loss must do more than cite alternative numbers from earlier proceedings; they must produce material that creates “real doubt” about the PSR’s reliability or accuracy.
  • Enhancement scope (§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)): Fraudsters cannot avoid the “government agency” misrepresentation enhancement by styling the supposed agency as a sham “consulate” or other non-existent sovereign entity; the focus is on exploiting apparent governmental authority.
  • Appellate preservation: The opinion is a cautionary template for cases involving pro se defendants: failure to make Rule 29 motions and sentencing objections can effectively foreclose meaningful appellate review.
  • Limited precedential force: As a “NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION” under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, the order is not binding precedent, but it signals how the Seventh Circuit is likely to apply its existing doctrines to similar fact patterns.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Actual loss vs. intended loss: “Actual loss” is what victims actually lost. “Intended loss” is what the defendant sought to take (even if unsuccessful). Under Seventh Circuit practice referenced here (and later clarified in United States v. Ponle), courts generally use the greater of the two.
  • Presentence Investigation Report (PSR): A probation-prepared report compiling offense conduct, victim impact, and Guidelines calculations. If reliable and well-supported, it can carry the government’s burden on sentencing facts.
  • Clear error review: A deferential appellate standard. The court will not reverse simply because it might have found differently; it reverses only if the finding is clearly wrong.
  • De novo review: No deference; the appellate court decides the legal question anew.
  • Forfeiture vs. plain error: When a party fails to timely raise an issue, the claim is forfeited and reviewed only for “plain error”—a narrow path requiring an obvious mistake affecting substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings.
  • Joint and several restitution: Each defendant can be held responsible for the full restitution amount, allowing victims to collect from any of them, with defendants sorting out allocation among themselves.
  • Minor-role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A decrease in offense level for relatively minimal participants. The panel found no plain error in denying it given evidence of Ali’s significant involvement.

5. Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s order affirms a straightforward but important set of operational rules in federal fraud sentencing: (1) a well-supported PSR can anchor intended-loss findings unless the defendant produces evidence creating “real doubt”; (2) the “government-agency” fraud enhancement turns on the defendant’s claimed authority and personal-gain intent, not on whether the claimed agency actually exists; and (3) preservation failures—especially in pro se trials—frequently convert potentially substantial arguments into near-impossible plain-error appeals.