WPCi /L% 8I!1JA΋:][ G/62C8z,gx2+my-/cNN\I_&c^~0@B8ccTӂŹ,Zo a&藧o Bbt6$IZ#דZ&x $?q|j~޺sNZwL鍲̲8Uƅ9> h]+&81$FZ: cQJkƌ Q6'#o\2ʆMOCksTwjc?6btTxSha|s:7XNVdKc!1Q5"#|v^2q'xŬXATq3U??#oC;O0,?05_aKsZMqȏf%mfkYʝep!CU+.  0opU6 B B2 BO Bl D 3 D+ 0< 0<# 0m_ 0 < 0SU>[ 0 Aw 0++ 0( AMo)f@- 0 0( AQ b!! !o)&#@O$W$o)r&@''o))@*** B* B + B)+ BF+ Bc+ B)+ B+ B)+ B+ B , B), BF,|c,..U8. B/ 0 J*>*>@?DNH@HHHHHHHHHHU8&I&I&I&I&I 0^I B-EKrK 0 K#gLU >(N %fNMlN(pNNN^ NwN4NN mNNUj8NNNNNNpOOOOTTTTU6MXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMXMX@XU8_a___________________2\f<6X9`(Courier' - Check w/ 3acosta to make sure didnt miss anything "Marina Mazor"0Marina Mazor .   6  "4Heading 1  XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK 7 (X7  ;1,X` Xp x  #;     7 (X7  h^X` hp x (#hC<6X9`(CourierC <6X9`(Courier New  d  d  d  d'dxd'dxd<:Default Para<:Footnote Ref<+ :Body Text In   XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK7 (X7  ;1,X` Xp x  #;  7 (X7  h^X` hp x (#hC<6X9`(CourierC  < :Footnote Tex8  6Block Text  XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK   7 (X7  2( ,X` Xp2    7 (X7  _UX` hp x (#_C<6X9`(CourierC\  `&Times New Roman(2V#$ e!rXXXXgXrXXXXrXX  ..    Թ  rXrXX"Xr   o&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK  V#"rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr  K (XK?+ ` hp x X?XXXN>: \ Kp.1E J J ?   (2V#$ e!rXXXXgXrXXXXrXX  ..    Թ  rXrXX"Xr  ݁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($ A<< cWPC.1.1!.1 j  u  "- "--$ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ##g#gd#(2V#$ e!rXXXXgXrXXXXrXX  ..    Թ  rXrXX"Xr  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($ C<< c- -  V#"rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr  K (XK?+ ` hp x X?XXX$N>: \ Kp.1E J J ?   WPC.1.1!.1 j  u  "- "--$ ~ ~ ~ ~ --#  V#"rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr  K (XK?+ ` hp x X?XXX'N>: \ Kp.1E J J ?   WPC.1.1!.1 j  u  "- "--$ ~ ~ ~ ~ --&  V#"rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr  K (XK?+ ` hp x X?XXX*N>: \ Kp.1E J J ?   WPC.1.1!.1 j  u  "- "--$ ~ ~ ~ ~ --)  d  d  d  d  d% Single  d  d% Single  d  d  d  d  d r b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   1    _<XHPXXrXHPTherecordsuggests,butisnotentirelyclear,thatAcosta x wasdrivingoutofthegarage.#rXHPXX<XHP# <\ 9Z+ Courier New  d($   0    U b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   9    _XHPXXrXHPInthePresentenceReport(PSR),thesuppressedtransactions x arelistedundertheheading"OffenseConduct,"alongwitha [ notationthattheevidencewassuppressed.ThePSRreferstothe > suppressedtransactionsas"relevantconducttotheoffenseof !q conviction."IntheAddendumtothePresentenceReport,the  T ProbationOfficestatedthatthesuppressedtransactionswere"part  7 ofthesamecourseofconducttotheoffenseofconviction."The   governmentreferredtothesuppressedevidenceseizedfrom   Castanossapartmentas"relevantconduct"inbothitssentencing    memorandumanditslettertotheProbationOfficelistingthe s   restitutionamountsrequested.Thedistrictcourtadoptedthis V  letterasanexhibitandusedtheamountsinittoorder 9  restitution.ThePresentenceReportalsoreferredtotheseitems l  asrelevantconduct.#rXHPXXXHP#  b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   8    _XHPXXrXHPWenotethattheevidencesuppressedbythedistrictcourt x includedbothcreditcardsandreceiptsseizedinviolationof [ AcostasFourthAmendmentrightsandstatementsinvestigators > obtainedfromAcostainviolationofhisFifthAmendmentrights. !q Thedisputebeforeusforrestitutionpurposesconcernsonlythe  T suppressedcreditcardreceipts#rXHPXXXHP#.      F : V#)rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr  _XX  b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   2    _LXHPXXrXHPInvestigatorsalsolearnedofvariousotherunauthorized x MasterCardandAmericanExpresschargesthatAcostadoesnot [ disputeonappeal.     <\ 9Z+ Courier New  _]XHPXXgX  0    0,XX XX #X0       3     TheMiamichargewasultimatelyexcludedfromtheloss  calculation.#gXXX]XHP# 6 e!rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP  ..    Թ  rXrXHPXr  _rXrXHPXr  X?+ ` hp x X?        6   e  Theonlyothercircuitthathasnotyetaddressedthisissue  afterthepassageoftheSentencingGuidelinesreachedthesame v conclusionastheotherCircuitsinapreGuidelinecase.United Y Statesv.Lee,540F.2d1205,1211(4thCir.1976)(notingthat < deterrenteffectofextendingtheexclusionaryruletosentencing  o "wouldbesominimalastobeinsignificant").  R#rXrXHP##Xr#  e!rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP  ..    Թ  rXrXHPXr  _XXXE1,X` Xp x  #XE  X  XHPXXX   7  18U.S.C.3661provides,"Nolimitationshallbeplacedon  theinformationconcerningthebackground,character,andconduct v ofapersonconvictedofanoffensewhichacourtoftheUnited Y Statesmayreceiveandconsiderforthepurposeofimposingan < appropriatesentence."Thedistrictcourtsdiscretionisnot  o unlimitedinscope,however.Brimah,214F.3dat856(citing  R U.S.S.G.5H1.11.6,5H1.10,whichlistfactorsincluding,inter  5 alia,age,education,andrace,thatarenotrelevantinsentencing   determinations).XXHPs  X q:\template\OPINIONS\BOWNES.WPT<\ 9Z+ Courier New (Sl2 $ e!rXXXXgXrXXXXrXX  ..    Թ  rXrXX"Xr     XXrX"rXXXr  rXXXXrXXrXXXXrXX   0   )Hairline d#|x(@$r?u rXX r?u  ..    Թ  r?u XrXB r?uHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0<\( 9Z+&Courier RegulargX-s [,?,}backupU<\ 9Z+ Courier New  f b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   4    _Thedistrictcourtexplained: x 8  IthinkitwouldcertainlybedemonstrablethatMr.Kidd > concluded,andcertainlytheCourtwouldconclude,that !q onceitsestablishedthat_Barerra_Ԁ[sic]isAcostaand  T _Barrera_Ԁhaspurchasedgiftcertificateswithafraudulent  7 card,andthesamemodusoperandiwasusedvirtually   contemporaneouslyandthegiftcertificatesweresentfor   redemptiontothesamepersonatthesameplaceinthe    samestate,virtuallycontemporaneously,forcashingin, s   itscertainlyreasonabletodrawtheinferencethenthat V  thepersonsarethesamepeopleoperatingunderdifferent 9  names;thatisMr.Acosta.   e!rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP  ..    Թ  rXrXHPXr  _  X  9% ,X` XVX #X9   X   5   Qe  XHPX,Nevertheless,thisrulehasnotbeenmetwithuniversal  acclaim.Raposa,84F.3dat505(citingUnitedStatesv.Jewel, v 947F.2d224,238-40(7thCir.1991)(Easterbrook,J.,concurring); Y UnitedStatesv.McCrory,930F.2d63,7072(D.C.Cir.1991); < WayneR.LaFave,1SearchandSeizure1.6,at40-41(2ded.Supp.  o 1995)).<6X9`(Courier New 6 e!rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP  ..    Թ  rXrXHPXr  _e    XXXXHPXXXE1,X` Xp x  #XE         10   e  Inexcludingthesuppressedevidencefromtheloss  calculation,thedistrictcourtreasoned:݌ v Ќ      ݌̌  8  IthinkI'msatisfiedthat,giventhetotality < ofthecircumstances,thefactthatthe  o violationofthedefendant'sconstitutional  R rightswasegregious,thatthesuppressed  5 evidenceasamatterofdueprocessshouldnot   beusedtoenhancehissentenceunderthe    applicableSentencingGuidelines.Idon'tfind    thatthepoliceofficershadanintentto q  enhancethesentence....However,the T  violationsareegregious,andIthinkthe 7  purposesunderlyingtheexclusionaryruleare j  wellserved...wherewehaveegregious M  violationsandwheretheevidence,havingbeen 0 suppressedinonecase,isattemptedtobeused  inasubsequentcasetoenhancethepunishment.#XXXXHP0##XXX#<\ 9Z+ Courier New  W b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   11    XHPXXrXHPAtleastintheschemecontext,othercircuitshave x determinedthefullamountofrestitutionauthorizedbystatuteby [ "_look[ing_]tothescopeoftheindictment,whichinturndefines > thescopeofthecriminalschemeforrestitutionpurposes."United !q Statesv.Ross,279F.3d600,609(8thCir.2002)(internal  T citationsandquotationsomitted)(alterationinoriginal);United  7 Statesv.Ramirez,196F.3d895,900(8thCir.1999)(notingthat   othercircuitsagreeinthecriminalschemecontext,theindictment   definesthescopeoftheschemeforrestitutionpurposes(citing    UnitedStatesv._Henoud_,81F.3d484,488(4thCir.1996)andcases s   cited));UnitedStatesv.Jackson,155F.3d942,94950(8thCir. V  1998);UnitedStatesv.Turino,978F.2d315,319(7thCir.1992).#rXHPXXXHP# ( b $rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP..      rXrXHPXr   XXrXrXHPXr  rXHPXXrXHPrXHPXXrXHP   12    _XHPXXrXHPCongressrespondedtoHugheybyexpandingthescopeofthe x VWPAtoincludeasvictimsthoseharmedbyanoffensethatinvolves [ ascheme,conspiracy,orpatternofcriminalactivityasan > element.18U.S.C.3663(a)(2).#rXHPXXXHP# e!rXHPXXgXrXHPXXrXHP  ..    Թ  rXrXHPXr  _ 8ggXdd8         XX3X   eUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals(3  FortheFirstCircuitX޷X(XHPXXX޷  _      `    -  XXHPX cSO~ K p X@E K V K-  XXXXHPXXX   ` No.012224      `     h      p      x  0p x (#X0QUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, S  6p x (#X(#6Q&Appellee, 6   H.` hp x (#X(#H3p x (#X(#3Qtt)v. L  6p x (#X(#6Q CESAR_ACOSTA_,a/k/aNELSON_BARRERA_,   Qxx!a/k/aPEDRO_LOZADA_,   6p x (#X(#6Q Defendant,Appellant.    H.` hp x (#X(#H k  -  XXHPX"aQM~ K p @X@EN K VN K-  XXXXHPXXX3p x (#X(#3Q APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT @ H.` hp x (#X(#H3p x (#X(#3Q0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE V Q*Q[Hon.StevenJ._McAuliffe_,U.S.DistrictJudge]  H.` hp x (#X(#H-  XXHPX%aQM~ K p @X@E K V K-  XXXXHPXXX3p x (#X(#3Q'Before  H.` hp x (#X(#H  ӀLynchCircuitJudge, J Campbelland_Bownes_,SeniorCircuitJudges. -} -  XXHPX(aQM~ K p @X@E K V K-  XXXXHPXXX    JonathanR._Saxe_,AssistantFederalPublicDefender,with  5" whomOwenS.Walker,FederalPublicDefender,wasonbrieffor !# appellant. "$   JeanB.Weld,AssistantU.S.Attorney,withwhomThomasP. #% _Colantuono_,U.S.Attorney,wasonbriefforappellee. q$& gXXXXHP@<< ____________________ '2#*   August30,2002 r)$, @<< ____________________ #XHPXXgXʒ#Ԉ :*%-  -(1 e 8ggXdgXd8   _    `  BOWNES,SeniorCircuitJudge. Defendantappellant  CesarAcostapledguiltytoaonecountindictmentcharginghim v withuseandattempteduseofoneormoreunauthorizedaccess < devicesinviolationof18U.S.C.1029(a)(2)and(b)(1).In  R determiningtheoffenselevel,thedistrictcourtcalculated   totallossinexcessof$20,000,sentencingAcostatotenmonths    imprisonmentandthreeyearsofsupervisedrelease.In T  calculatingrestitution,thecourtconsideredsuppressedevidence j  thatithadexcludedfromthelosscalculation.Acostaappeals 0 boththelossamount,withitsresultingoffenselevel,and  restitutionaward.We AFFIRM . l  I.BACKGROUND 2  A.Facts  H OnOctober2,2000,AcostausedanAmericanExpress  cardinthenameofNelsonBarreratopurchasethree$250gift  cardsfromaJ.C.PenneystoreinNashua,NewHampshire.Store J securityofficerMarkKiddwitnessedthepurchase,followed !`  Acostaintotheparkinglot,andobservedhimentertheSears "&" store.AcostaspurchasearousedKiddssuspicionsbecausethe $$ storehadrecentlyexperiencedlossesarisingfrommultiplegift b&!& cardpurchasesthroughcounterfeitcreditcards.Atthetimehe ((x#( observedAcosta,Kiddwasunawarethatthedefendantwasusinga )>%* fraudulentcard.SearssecurityvideotapedAcostaashiscard +', wasdeniedwhenheattemptedtopurchasesimilargift  certificates.KiddthenobservedAcostaenteracar,which,it v developed,wasregisteredtoAcostasgirlfriend,DelvaCastanos. < SecurityOfficerKiddcontactedAmericanExpressandlearnedthat  R NelsonBarrerawasnotavalidAmericanExpressaccountholder.   H1,X` Xp x  #X(#HOnOctober14,2000,Acostapurchasedtwomore$250    giftcertificatesfromaTargetstoreinNashua,NewHampshire, T  usingaMasterCardalsointhenameofNelsonBarrera.Eleven j  dayslater,investigatorsfromtheNashuaPoliceDepartmentand 0 SecretServicewenttotheapartmentofAcostasgirlfriendDelva  Castanos.CastanosidentifiedthemanintheSearsvideotapeas l Acostaandconsentedtoasearchofherapartmentandvehicle. 2 Aboutthesametime,OfficerKarenBecotteofthe H NashuaPoliceDepartmentstoppedAcostaashewasdriving  Castanosscarintheparkinggarageofthebuildinginwhichshe  hadanapartment. 9 >  1      AcostashowedheraNewHampshiredrivers J licenseinthenameofPedroLozada.Becottefalselyinformed !`  Acostathathisvehiclewassuspectedofinvolvementinahit "&" andrunaccident,andAcostaaccompaniedhertothepolice $$  stationinCastanosscar. b&!& Inaninterviewatthepolicestation,Acostaadmitted   totheuseofanumberofaliasesandstolencreditcards.He v saidhehadobtainedthecardsfromanindividualheknewas"Fat < John."HealsoindicatedthatCastanos'sapartmentcontained  R evidenceincludingitemspurchasedwiththesecards,receipts,   andadditionalfraudulentcreditcards.Acostaaccompanied    investigatorstotheapartment,showedthemtheevidence,and T  providedthemwithseventeencreditcardsinseveraldifferent j  names. 0 PriortoAcostasinterrogation,OfficerKiddalso  learnedoffraudulentcreditcardchargesataJ.C.Penneystore l inConcord,NewHampshire,onFebruary21and22,2000.These 2 charges,onacardissuedtoRafaelVila,consistedoffour$250 H giftcardpurchasesanda$124.98merchandisepurchase,totaling  $1,124.98.ThegovernmentlinkedAcostatothesetransactions  throughhisuseofanAmericanExpresscardtofraudulently J purchasegiftcardsataJ.C.PenneyinSalem,NewHampshire,on !`  January10,2000.Later,anindividualusingthenameJoseph "&"  TrimpinredeemedtheJ.C.Penneygiftcardspurchasedbyboth $$ VilaandAcostaatastoreinMiami,Florida. G >  2      ThroughTrimpins  actions,thegovernmentlinkedAcostatotheVilatransactions. v  D B.ProceduralHistory  < EHZ1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #ZOnNovember9,2000,Acostawasindictedononecount  R ofpossessionof,withintenttodefraud,fifteenormore   counterfeitorunauthorizedaccessdevices(creditcards),in    violationof18U.S.C.1029(a)(3).Acostafiledamotionto T  suppress,arguingthathehadbeenillegallyarrested,questioned j  absentMirandawarnings,andquestionedafterhehadrequestedan 0 attorney.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotion,suppressingall  ofAcostasstatementsandallevidencederivedtherefrom, l includinganumberofcreditcardsandreceiptsfoundat 2 Castanossapartment.Afterthis,thedistrictcourtgrantedthe H governmentsmotiontodismisstheindictment.OnMarch15,  2001,thegovernmentreindictedAcostaononecountof  fraudulentlyusingandattemptingto"useoneormore J unauthorizedaccessdevices...including,butnotlimitedto, !`  AmericanExpressCard#371388014444020,tofraudulentlyobtain "&" propertyandotheritemsof[sic]withanaggregatevalueofmore $$ thanonethousanddollars"betweenJanuary1,2000and b&!& DEH D EDF HE H  October25,2000,inviolationof18U.S.C.1029(a)(2)and  (b)(1).Acostafiledanothermotiontosuppress,whichthe v districtcourtdismissedasmootbasedonthegovernments < representationsthatitwouldnotrelyonanyevidencecoveredby  R theearliersuppressionordertoprovethechargeinthesecond   indictment.ThedistrictcourtalsodismissedasmootAcostas    motiontodismissor,inthealternative,forabillof T  particularsbecause"thegovernmenthasrepresentedthatthe j  indictmentsreferenceto'otheraccessdevices'referstothose 0 creditcardsidentifiedinitsObjectiontoDefendantsMotionto  Dismiss...andthatitsevidencewillbelimitedtotheaccess l devicesidentifiedintheindictmentandinitsobjection."The 2 governmentrepresentedinthismotionthat"[n]oneofthe H information[inthesecondindictment]issubjecttothe  suppressiondecision"andthatitwouldnotattempttousethe  suppressedevidencewithoutthecourtspermission. J Acostapledguiltytothisnewindictmentandsigneda !`  bindingpleaagreementstipulatingthattheamountoflossfrom "&" hischargedconductdidnotexceed$40,000. $$ K" ,X` XX # ,X` XX #K   XHPXXXHPXHPXXXHPK (X@b&!K  ]1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #]  K" ,X` XX # ,X` XX #K 5  Thegovernmentalsofiledasentencingmemorandumwith n&!& attachmentsinsupportofitssentencingpositions.Thisreport 4(#( incorporatedtheresultsofaSecretServiceinquiryintotheuse )J%* ofAmericanExpresscardnumber371388014444020,whichfoundthat +', thecardhadbeenlegitimatelyissuedtoOlgamarinaDeTunezof   Miami,Florida.Thememoreportcontainedalistofseventysix  fraudulentchargesonthiscreditcard.Threeentriesreflected H theOctober2transactionsthatOfficerKiddhadwitnessedatthe  ^ J.C.PenneystoreinConcord,NewHampshire.Othercharges  $ includedtransactionsatHenriBendel,abusinessinNewYork    City,onSeptember7,2000;KMartinNorthMiami,Florida,and `  SamGoodyinSalem,NewHampshire,allonSeptember14,2000; &v  SearsRoebuckinManchester,NewHampshire,onSeptember15, < 2000;ScoopEastinNewYorkCityandLenscraftersandSears  RoebuckinNashua,NewHampshire,allonSeptember24,2000;as x wellasmyriadothertransactionsatNewHampshireand > Massachusettsbusinesses.Thefraudulentchargestothis T account,anaccountknowntoinvestigatorspriortotheir  obtainingthesuppressedevidenceonOctober25,2000,totaled  $17,243.69. 5<7݌ V Ќ  <%%@(!x <  N" ,X` XX # ,X` XX #NXHPXXXHPXHPXXXHP   ]1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #]Atsentencing,thedistrictcourtruledthatthe (!x  suppressedevidencecouldnotbeusedtocalculateoffenselevel ">" becausethepolicehadacted"egregious[ly]"inobtainingit. $ $ ThecourtattributedthepurchasesmadebyVilatoAcostaand z&!& includedthemtocalculatetotalloss.Thecourtincludedthe @(#( $1,124.98inpurchasesbyVila,$17,243.69inAmericanExpress *V%* Cardpurchases,$1,498.99fromAcostasfraudulentuseofa +', MasterCard,and$259.96fromAcostaspurchasesatSearsto  calculatetotallossforAcostasguidelinerange.Theresulting v total,$20,127.62,yieldedatotaloffenseleveloftenwitha < guidelinesentencingrange(GSR)ofsixtotwelvemonths.  R ApplyingacriminalhistorycategoryofI,thecourtsentenced   Acostatotenmonthsimprisonmentandthreeyearsofsupervised    release.Italsoorderedrestitutionof$37,756.30,anamount T  thatincludedthesuppressedtransactions.Withoutanydefense j  objectionastoaccuracy,thecourtadoptedthisrestitution 0 figurefromthegovernmentsAugust23,2001,lettertothe  ProbationOffice,whichreferredtoaffidavitsoflossprovided l bythecreditcardcompanies. 2   II. DISCUSSION H   Acostaappealsthedistrictcourtscalculationsof  loss,alongwithitsresultingoffenselevel,andrestitution.  Onloss,hecontestsboththe$17,243.69AmericanExpressfigure, J arguingitshouldbe$750.00,andthe$1,124.98figure,claiming !`  nopartofitshouldbeattributedtohim.Hecontendsthathis "&" sentenceshouldbebasedonalossfigureoflessthan$5,000, $$ resultinginanoffenselevelofsix,andaGSRofzerotosix b&!& months.Healsoconteststherestitutionamount,arguingthat ((x#( thedistrictcourtshouldnothaveconsideredthesuppressed )>%* transactions.Werejectbotharguments. +',  A.LossCalculation   Acostaarguesthatthedistrictcourterredin v calculatinghisoffenselevelbyincludingunsuppressedcredit < cardchargesthatthegovernmentdidnotproveAcostapersonally  R made.Wereviewthedistrictcourtsfindingsoffactforclear   error.UnitedStatesv.Brewster,1F.3d51,54(1stCir.1993).    ThisCourtgrantsgreatdeferencetoadistrictcourts T  calculationoftheamountoflossforsentencingpurposes: j   8 ` Calculatingtheamountoflossforpurposes 0 ofthesentencingguidelinesismoreanart  thanascience....[A]partydissatisfied  withthesentencingcourt'squantificationof  theamountoflossinaparticularcasemust l goalongwaytodemonstratethatthefinding O isclearlyerroneous.2` x` x Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #ZUnitedStatesv.Rostoff,53F.3d398,407(1stCir.1995) H (citationsomitted).Thegovernmentmustprovetheamountof  lossunderU.S.S.G.2F1.1byapreponderanceoftheevidence.  UnitedStatesv.Vaknin,112F.3d579,58283(1stCir.1997); J UnitedStatesv.Keifer,198F.3d798,800(10thCir.1999).The !`  sentencingmustbebasedoninformationbearing"sufficient "&" indiciaofreliabilitytosupportitsprobableaccuracy." $$ U.S.S.G.6A1.3(a),p.s.(2001). b&!&  ` Acostaarguesthatthedistrictcourtandgovernment ((x#( weremerelyspeculatingthathewastheonlypersonwithaccess )>%* totheunauthorizedAmericanExpresscardnumber371388014444020. +', Hepointsoutthatbecausethecardwasnotastolencard,but  ratheracardmanufacturedfraudulentlyusinganillegally v obtainedcardnumber,thelikelihoodwasverylowthataperson < wouldgotothetroubleoffraudulentlyobtainingacreditcard  R numberonlytoproducejustonefakecardandthentakethatcard   fromFloridatoNewEnglandtosellit.Further,Acostapoints    outthatwhenfacedwithevidencethatthesamecreditcard T  numberwasusedonthesamedayataKMartinNorthMiami, j  FloridaandatSamGoodyinSalem,NewHampshire,thegovernment 0 explainedthepotentialproblembysayingthattheMiamiusewas  erroneouslyclassifiedasfraudulentandwasinfactalegitimate l transaction.    M >  3      Traud  Acostaarguesthatitispossiblethatotheruses 2 weresimilarlyclassifiedasfraudulentbymistake. H  ` Acostaalsohighlightsthetwoinstanceswherea  fraudulentcardwasusedinNewYorkandNewHampshireonthe  samedatetofurthersuggestthatanotherpersonwasusingthe J sameaccountnumber,andpointsoutthatnoevidencewasoffered !`  torefutethispossibility.Whileconcedingthatitwas "&" theoreticallypossiblethattheNewYorkpurchasesweremadeby $$ telephoneorthathetraveledtobothstatesonthesameday, b&!& Acostaarguesthatthesescenariosarehighlyunlikelyandthe ((x#( governmentsevidencelinkinghimtothesepurchasesis  insufficient. v  ` Accordingly,Acostaargues,heshouldbeheld < responsibleonlyforthethreeoftheseventysixusesof  R AmericanExpressCardnumber371388014444020thatoccurredon   October2,2000,atJ.C.PenneyinNashua,NewHampshire.In    contrast,thegovernmentargued,andthecourtfound,thatall T  usesofthiscard,totaling$17,243.69,wereattributableto j  Acosta. 0  ` Atthesentencinghearing,thedistrictcourtjudge  concludedthatthegovernmenthadmetitsburdenunderthe l preponderanceoftheevidencestandard: 2 8 ` Ifindthatthegovernmenthasestablishedby H apreponderanceoftheevidencethatthe + $17,243.69ofattributablelossesiscorrect.  Imsatisfiedthattheresnoevidencethat  thereweremultiplecardswiththesame  number.Therescertainlysomequestionable g chargeshere,buttherearemyriad J explanationsastohowthatcould - } happen....[C]ertainlyitsnot !`  inconceivableatall,infactitsvery !C! plausible,thatthedefendantcouldeasily "&" havemadephonecallstotheseNewYork # # Storesandorderedwhateverwasordered.You $$ donthavetobepersonallythere.Itcould % % bephonecalls.Itcouldbewhatever.He b&!& hadthecardinhispossession.Hewasin E'"' thearea.Theresnoevidencethatconvinces ((x#( meorsatisfiesmethattheresareal  )[$) plausibilityofanotherduplicatecardout )>%*  thereotherthantheoriginalcard,soI *!&+ thinkthegovernmentsmetitsburdenof  proofwithrespecttothatnumber.` x` x  Excludingthesuppressedevidencetocalculatelossfor Y sentencingpurposes,thecourteliminated$2,831.31andadopted  o the$17,243.69figureaschargestoAmericanExpresscardnumber  5 371388014444020.ThisexcludedtheMiami,Florida,charge.    K (X@q KZ1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` Indeed,mostofthechargesattributedtoAcosta }  occurredinatightgeographicalareaNewHampshireand C  Massachusettsandmanyweregiftcards.Thecourtconcluded  Y  thatthepreponderanceoftheevidencedemonstratedAcostalikely  madethepurchases.Further,oftheseventysixtransactions  chargedtoAmericanExpresscardnumber371388014444020,only [ threeweremadeinNewYork,whichisoutsidethetight !q geographicalarea.ThedistrictcourtconcludedthatAcosta 7 couldhavemadethesechargeshimself,likelyoverthephoneor  inperson. s  ` Consideringtheargumentthatthepurchasesmadeonthe 9  cardissuedtoVilashouldnotbeattributedtoAcosta,the !O! districtcourtrecognizedthatthequestionwasa"close"onebut ## determinedthatthegovernmenthadmetitsburden,establishing % % "byapreponderanceoftheevidence...that[the]chargemade Q'"'  byMr.Vila,independently[ofthe]suppressedevidence,wasmade )g$) byMr.Acosta." x >  4      Thedistrictcourtincludedthisamountinthe    calculationofloss.   ` Giventhehighlevelofdeferenceweaccordtoatrial H courtscalculationoflossforsentencingpurposesandthe  ^ judgesreasonedexplanationsonbothfigures,weseenoclear  $ errorinthedistrictcourtslosscalculation.       XHPXXXHPXHPXXXHPK (X@l K  Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z    &  j   ` B.Restitution X jk ekԌ x  Ќ  R /XrH@J R  H ,X` XX # ,X` XX #HXHPXXXHPXHPXXXHP  Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` Acostaarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinusing V  thesuppressedevidencetocalculaterestitution.Wereviewthis l claimoflegalerrordenovo.UnitedStatesv.Collins,209F.3d 2 1,2(1stCir.1999);UnitedStatesv.Neal,36F.3d1190,1199  (1stCir.1994);UnitedStatesv.Savoie,985F.2d612,618(1st n Cir.1993).' SkԀ 4  `    ` 1.UseofSuppressedEvidence     ` ThisCircuithasyettodecidewhetheracourtmayuse  evidencesuppressedundertheFourthAmendmentinthecontextof H SentencingGuidelinesproceedings.UnitedStatesv.Raposa,84  ^ F.3d502,503(1stCir.1996)(addressingbutdecliningtodecide  $ theissue).Wehavenoted,however,thatallthecourtsthat    haveaddressedthisissuehaveheldthat"thereisnoblanket `  prohibitionontheconsiderationofillegallyseizedevidencefor &v  thepurposesofmakingthefindingsrequiredunderthe < Guidelines."    | >  5      rind  Id.at504.Indeed,tenothercircuitshaveruled  thatinmostcircumstances,theFourthAmendmentexclusionary x ruledoesnotbartheintroductionofsuppressedevidenceduring > sentencingproceedings.    P >  6      tind  UnitedStatesv.Ryan,236F.3d1268, T 127172(10thCir.2001)(citingUnitedStatesv.Brimah,214  F.3d854,857-59&n.4(7thCir.2000)(holdingexclusionaryrule   atsentencingshouldnotbarintroductionofevidenceseizedin  violationofFourthAmendment,butleavingopenquestionof H whethertheruleapplieswhenpoliceintentionallyactillegally  ^ toenhancedefendant'ssentence);UnitedStatesv.  $ Tauil-Hernandez,88F.3d576,581(8thCir.1996)(holdingthe    exclusionaryruledoesnotapplyatsentencing);UnitedStatesv. `  Kim,25F.3d1426,1435&n.8(9thCir.1994)(admittingevidence &v  fromillegalsearchandseizureatsentencing,butleavingopen < thequestionofwhethertheruleapplieswhenpolice  intentionallyactillegallytoenhancedefendant'ssentenceor x hadan"undueincentive"tosoact);UnitedStatesv. > Montoya-Ortiz,7F.3d1171,1181&n.10(5thCir.1993)(holding T exclusionaryruleisgenerallyinapplicabletosentencing  proceedings,butsuggestingthatillegallyseizedevidencecould  beexcludedifitwasseizedforthesolepurposeofenhancing V defendant'ssentence);UnitedStatesv.Jenkins,4F.3d1338, !l  1344-45(6thCir.1993)(permittingtheuseofillegallyseized "2" evidenceafterfindingnoindicationthatevidencewasobtained $$ toenhancedefendant'ssentence);UnitedStatesv.Tejada,956 n&!& F.2d1256,1263(2dCir.1992)("Absentashowingthatofficers 4(#( obtainedevidenceexpresslytoenhanceasentence,adistrict )J%* judgemaynotrefusetoconsiderrelevantevidenceatsentencing, +', evenifthatevidencehasbeenseizedinviolationoftheFourth   Amendment.");UnitedStatesv.Lynch,934F.2d1226,1236-37&  n.15(11thCir.1991)(admittingillegallyobtainedevidenceand H reservingquestionofwhethersuppressionwouldbenecessaryif  ^ illegalsearchwasdonewithpurposeofincreasingdefendant's  $ sentence);McCrory,930F.2d63,69(D.C.Cir.1991)(same);    UnitedStatesv.Torres,926F.2d321,325(3dCir.1991) `  (same)).Nineofthesecircuitshaveaddedorleftopenthe &v  possibilitythattheexclusionaryrulewillstillapplyifthere < isanindicationthatthepoliceviolatedthedefendantsFourth  Amendmentrightswiththeintenttosecureanincreasedsentence. x Ryan,236F.3dat1272;Brimah,214F.3dat858n.4;Kim,25F.3d > at1435n.9;Montoya-Ortiz,7F.3dat1181n.10;Jenkins,4F.3d T at1345;Tejada,956F.2dat1263;Torres,926F.2dat325;  Lynch,934F.2dat1237n.15;McCrory,930F.2dat69.  Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` Theseothercircuitshavecarefullyreasonedthat, V interalia,thedeterrenteffectoftheexclusionaryruledoes !l  notoutweighthedetrimentaleffectsofexcludingreliable "2" evidenceonthecourtsabilitytomeetitsgoalofproper $$ sentencing.E.g.,Tejada,956F.2dat1262(concludingthat n&!& allowingillegallyobtainedevidencetobeconsideredat 4(#( sentencingwouldnotprovidegreaterincentivesforpoliceto )J%* violatetheFourthAmendment);Lynch,934F.2dat123637.They +', havealsorecognizedthatthesentencingcourtneedstohavethe   fullestinformationavailabletofashionanappropriateremedy  andthattheSentencingGuidelinesallowthesentencingcourtto H consider,withoutlimitation,anyinformationconcerningthe  ^ defendantsbackground,character,orconduct.E.g.,McCrory,  $ 930F.2dat68;18U.S.C.3661(2000);   Q >  7      rant'  seealsoUnitedStates    v.Robins,978F.2d881,891(5thCir.1992)(notingthat"[i]t `  isafundamentalprincipleofsentencingthatadistrictcourt &v  mayconductaninquirybroadinscope,largelyunlimitedeither < astothekindofinformationitmayconsider,orthesourcefrom  whichsuchinformationmaycome"(citingUnitedStatesv. x Campbell,684F.2d141,152(D.C.Cir.1982)). >  ` Whileneverhavingspokendirectlyonthisissue,the T SupremeCourthasrecognizedtheexclusionaryruleas  8 ` ajudiciallycreatedremedydesignedto  safeguardFourthAmendmentrightsgenerally s throughitsdeterrenteffect,ratherthana V personalconstitutionalrightoftheparty 9  aggrieved.Despiteitsbroaddeterrent !l  purpose,theexclusionaryrulehasneverbeen   interpretedtoproscribetheuseofillegally  seizedevidenceinallproceedingsoragainst  allpersons.e` x` x Ѐ H Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #ZUnitedStatesv.Calandra,414U.S.338,348(1974)(weighingthe + { deterrenteffectoftheexclusionaryruleonpolicemisconduct  A againstthepotentialbenefitofextendingtheruletograndjury    proceedings). }   ` Itisclearthatinsentencing,considerationof C  evidencesuppressedundertheFourthAmendmentis"consistent  Y  withthecaselawontheexclusionaryruleandfollowsthewell  establishedpracticeofreceivingevidencerelevanttosentencing  fromabroadspectrumofsources."Torres,926F.2dat325. [ Giventhegreatweightoftheprecedentandfollowingthe !q unanimous,reasonedapproachofoursistercircuits,weholdthat 7 theexclusionaryruledoesnotbartheuseofevidenceseizedin  violationofadefendantsFourthAmendmentrightsin s sentencing. C >  8      <XHPXXXHPWeleaveopenthequestionofwhetherthe 9  exclusionaryrulewouldbartheuseofevidencewhenpolice !O! intentionallyactinviolationoftheFourthAmendmentinorder ## toincreaseadefendantssentence.#XHPXX<XHP6#Therefore,thedistrict   courtwasnotrequiredtoexcludethesuppressedevidenceinthe  contextofsentencinginthiscase,eventhoughitchosetodoso H incalculatingtheloss.Thisisnotacasewheretheofficers  ^ actedwithintenttoenhanceAcostassentence.Thedistrict  $ courtfoundnosuchintentandneithersidedisputesthis    conclusion.Determiningthatthedistrictcourtcouldproperly `  haveconsideredthesuppressedevidenceinAcostassentencing &v  proceedings,wenextexaminewhethertherestitutionorderwas < otherwisevalid.   ` 2.LegalRequirementsofaRestitutionOrder  x Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` TheVictimandWitnessProtectionAct(VWPA)authorizes > adistrictcourttoorder"inadditiontoor...inlieuofany T otherpenaltyauthorizedbylaw,thatthedefendantmake  restitutiontoanyvictim"oftheoffense.18U.S.C.3663(a).  Thepurposebehindthestatuteisto"insurethatthewrongdoer V makegood[],tothedegreepossible,theharmhehascausedto !l  thevictim."Vaknin,112F.3dat582(citationandinternal "2" quotationsomitted)(alterationinoriginal).TheSupremeCourt $$ hasheldthatthisstatutelimitsrestitutionawardsto"theloss n&!& causedbythespecificconductthatisthebasisoftheoffense 4(#( ofconviction."Hugheyv.UnitedStates,495U.S.411,413 )J%* (1990).Inaddition,wherethecriminalconductincludes"an +', offensethatinvolvesasanelementascheme,conspiracy,or   patternofcriminalactivity,"avictimisdefinedas"anyperson  directlyharmedbythedefendant'scriminalconductinthecourse H ofthescheme,conspiracy,orpattern."18U.S.C.3663(a)(2)  ^ (2000).Insuchcases,thedistrictcourtmayorderrestitution  $ withoutregardtowhethertheconductthatharmedthevictimwas    conductunderlyingtheoffenseofconviction.E.g.,United `  Statesv.Hensley,91F.3d274,277(1stCir.1996). &v   ` Itisundisputedthatrestitutionispartofa < sentence.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Wallen,953F.2d3,4(1st  Cir.1991)(referringtorestitutionimposedbythecourtas x "partof[thedefendants]sentence");18U.S.C.3663(a)(1)(A) > ("Thecourt,whensentencingadefendant...mayorder... T thatthedefendantmakerestitution"(emphasisadded)).Thus,  undertheVWPAandHughey,thesuppressedevidenceinthiscase  maybeincludedintherestitutionawardonlyif(1)theoffense V involvedascheme,conspiracy,orpatternofcriminalactivity; !l  or(2)theevidencerepresentsconductthatwasthebasisofthe "2" offenseofconviction.Weaddresseachissueinturn. $$  ` a.SchemeorConspiracy  n&!&   ` Under18U.S.C.3663(a)(2),anyconductthatisin 4(#( thecourseofthescheme,conspiracy,orpatternmaybe )J%* consideredincalculatingrestitution.Thus,ifthiscase +', involvedascheme,conspiracy,orpatternofcriminalactivity,   thedistrictcourtcouldproperlyincludethesuppressedevidence  intherestitutionorderregardlessofwhetheritwasconductof H conviction.  ^  ` Itisclearfromtherecordthattheoffensewithwhich  $ Acostawaschargedwasnotoneinvolvingascheme,conspiracy,or    patternofcriminalactivity.Acostapledguiltyto"knowingly `  andwithintenttodefraudtraffic[king]inorus[ing]oneor &v  moreunauthorizedaccessdevisesduringanyone-yearperiod,and < bysuchconductobtain[ing]anythingofvalueaggregating$1,000  ormoreduringthatperiod."18U.S.C.1029(a)(2).Itis x clearthatthisoffensedoesnotincludeasanelementascheme, > conspiracy,orpatternofcriminalactivity.UnitedStatesv. T Blake,81F.3d498,506(4thCir.1996)(statingthattheoffense  offraudulentuseofunauthorizedaccessdevicesinviolationof  18U.S.C.1029(a)(2)doesnot"includeasanelementascheme, V conspiracy,orpatternofcriminalactivity").     r.1      !l   ` b.ConductofConviction  "2"  ` Wenowturntothequestionofwhetherthesuppressed $$ creditcardsrepresentedconductthatwasthebasisofthe n&!& offenseofconviction.Surprisingly,noneoftheproceedings 4(#( belowconsideredwhetherthisevidencewasconductofconviction. )J%* Rather,thisevidencewastreatedas"relevantconduct" +', throughout.@ >   9      ׀Thedistinctionbetweenrelevantconductand   conductunderlyingtheoffenseofconvictionisanimportantone.  Unlesstheoffenseinvolvesasanelementascheme,conspiracy, H orpatternofcriminalactivity,relevantconductmaynotbe  ^ takenintoaccountforcalculationofrestitution;onlyconduct  $ ofconvictionmaybeconsidered.UnitedStatesv.Benjamin,30    F.3d196,198&n.1(1stCir.1994).Nevertheless,the `  responsibilitytobringthisissuetothecourtsattention &v  restedwiththedefendant.BecauseAcostafailedtoraisethe < issuebelow,hehasforfeitedit;wethereforereviewthecourts  useofthesuppressedevidenceincalculatingrestitutionfor x plainerroronly.UnitedStatesv.Olano,507U.S.725,73132 > (1993).Establishingplainerrorrequiresafourpartshowing: T "thattherewaserror;thatitwasplain;thattheerroraffected  thedefendant'ssubstantialrights;andthattheerroradversely  impactedthefairness,integrity,orpublicreputeofjudicial   proceedings."UnitedStatesv.Saxena,229F.3d1,5(1stCir.  2000).Weseenoplainerrorhere. H  ` Acostaarguesthatinlightofthereferencestothe  ^ suppressedtransactionsasrelevantconductbelow,andthefact  $ thatthegovernmentsprofferatthechangeofpleahearing    includedonlytheunsuppressedevidence,theevidencedoesnot `  supporttheargumentthatthesuppressedcreditcardsrepresented &v  conductofconviction.Hefurthercontendsthatbecausethe < districtcourtdeclinedtousethesuppressedevidencein   calculatingtheoffenselevelasadueprocessmatterbecausethe x violationofhisrightswas"egregious,"itshouldlikewisenot   haveusedtheevidencetocalculaterestitution.     >  10       Ƴant'  ݀   Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` Thegovernmentcountersthatthedistrictcourtcould H havefoundthatthesuppressedtransactionswereconduct  ^ underlyingtheoffensetowhichAcostapledguilty.The  $ indictmenttowhichAcostapledguiltywasverybroad,e >   11           ^ant'  charging    himwithusingandattemptingtouse"oneormoreunauthorized   accessdevices"duringatenmonthperiodandobtainingvalueof  atleast$1,000fromthisconduct.Itspecificallynotedthat H thisconductincluded,butwas"notlimitedto,"AmericanExpress  ^ cardnumber371388014444020.Thegovernmentpointsoutthat  $ chargingtheuseofmorethanonecreditcardtoobtainthe    statutoryjurisdictionalamountof$1,000iscommonpractice. `   ` Further,thegovernmentargues,Acostasrelianceon &v  Hughey,495U.S.411(1990),tocontendthatthelossassociated < withthesuppressedevidenceisnotconductofconviction,is  misplaced.InHughey,thedefendantpledguiltytoonecountof x amulticountindictmentforusingstolencreditcards.Id.at > 413.TheSupremeCourtreversedthedistrictcourtsrestitution T orderbecauseithadincludedtheuseofothercreditcardsto  whichthedefendanthadnotpledguilty.Id.at422. >   12          ant'   Here,in  contrast,Acostapledguiltytoonechargeofusingoneormore V cardsduringatenmonthperiod.Thegovernmentarguesthatthis !l  chargeincludedallpossiblecreditcardsconnectedtohimduring "2" thistimeframe.Fromdiscovery,Acostawasawarethatthe $$ governmentwouldintroduceproofofhisotheruseofcards.The n&!& governmentarguesthatalthoughitagreednottointroducethe   suppressedevidence,atsentencing,thedistrictcourtcouldhave  consideredthatevidenceconductofconviction. H   ` WerejectAcostasargumentsandfindnoplainerrorin  ^ thedistrictcourtsuseofthesuppressedevidenceinthe  $ restitutioncalculation.Wedonotequatethedistrictcourts    refusaltousetheevidenceinthelosscalculationwitha `  determinationthatthesuppressedtransactionswerenotpartof &v  theoffenseofconviction. <  ` Atthesentencinghearing,thedistrictcourtexpressed  concernforAcostasrighttodueprocessandexcludedthe x illegallyobtainedevidencefromitscalculation.      ven  This,however, > didnotremovetheevidenceitselffromtheoffenseconduct T actuallychargedintheindictment.Adistrictcourt"neednot  makeopencourtfindingsonthestatutoryfactorswhenissuinga  restitutionordersolongastherecordonappealrevealsthat V thejudgemadeimplicitfindingsorotherwiseadequatelyevinced !l  hisconsiderationsofthosefactors."Neal,36F.3dat1200 "2" (citingSavoie,985F.2dat618).Thedistrictcourtadequately $$ explainedthatthepoliciesunderlyingitsdecisiontoapplythe n&!& exclusionaryruleincalculatingoffenselevelweredifferent 4(#( fromthestrongpolicyconsiderationsunderlyingthevictims )J%* righttocompensation: +', 8 ` Imnotsurethepolicemisconductshould   inuretothedetrimentofavictimwith  respecttotherestitution.Thatsawhole  differentpathwayoflegalsocialpolicy e issuestobeconsidered.Itsonethingto H saywerenotgoingtouseevidenceobtained + { throughpolicemisconductforthepurposeof  ^ enhancingyourincarcerativesentence.Its  A quiteanotherthingtosaytoaninnocent  $ victimweregoingtousepolicemisconduct    forthepurposesofdeprivingyouofyour    righttorestitution....Ithinkthe }  policiesunderlyingmydecisiontoapplythe `  exclusionaryruleherewouldapplyonlyto C  thepunishmentwithrespecttothe &v  incarcerativesentence. Y ` x` x Z1,X` Xp x  # ,X` XX #Z ` Hadthedistrictcourtconsideredthesuppressed  evidenceinsentencing(asourprecedinganalysisshowsitcould  properlyhavedone),itcouldhavecalculatedanoffenselevel [ basedonallthetransactions!suppressedandunsuppressed. !q Prohibitingthecourtfromusingthissameevidencetocalculate 7 restitutionwouldleadtotheabsurdresultthatalthoughthe  defendantcouldhavebeenservingasentencebasedinpartonthe s suppressedoffenses,thevictimsoftheseoffenseswouldnot 9  receivecompensationfortheirlosses.NeitherHugheynorthe !O! VWPA,whoseobjectiveistocompensateawideclassofvictims ## fortheirlosses,couldhaveintendedsuchanoutcome. % %  ` Therecordisclearthatthedistrictcourtexamined Q'"' thefactorssurroundingthechargesinthegovernmentsletterto )g$) theProbationOfficelistingitsrequestedrestitutionamounts. *-&+ Theletter,preparedfromaffidavitsofactuallosssubmittedby   thevictimcreditcardcompanies,includedthesuppressed  evidence.Althoughtheletter(andPSR)referredtothese H transactionsas"relevantconduct,"thegovernmentarguesthat  ^ theyfallwithinthescopeofAcostascriminalconductinthe  $ indictmentandfurthersupportthecontentionthatthesuppressed    evidencewasconductthatwasthebasisfortheoffenseof `  conviction.Acostadidnotdisputetheaccuracyoftheamounts &v  intheletter;hisobjectionrestedonhisargumentthatthe < suppressedevidenceshouldnotbeusedtocalculaterestitution.   ` Asthegovernmentpointsout,thelanguageofthe x indictmentisbroadenoughtoencompassAcostascriminalconduct > ofusingboththesuppressedandunsuppressedcreditcardsinthe T tenmonthperioditcovers.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.  Silkowski,32F.3d682,689(2dCir.1984)(notingthatdefendant  mustpayrestitutiononlyforlosses"directlycausedbyconduct V withinthetemporallimitsoftheoffenseofconviction");United !l  Statesv.Bailey,975F.2d1028,1033(4thCir.1992)(upholding "2" restitutionawardtoinvestorsnotmentionedinindictmentand $$ distinguishingHugheywheretheoffenseof"defraudinginvestors n&!& ofmoniesinexcessoffifteenmilliondollars"was"defined 4(#( broadlyintheindictment");seealsoUnitedStatesv.Pepper,51 )J%* F.3d469,473(5thCir.1995)(holdingthedatesspecifiedinthe +', indictment,alongwithadescriptionoftheunlawfulconductina   schemeordefraudcase,weresufficientlyspecifictosatisfy  Hughey);UnitedStatesv.Wise,990F.2d1545,1548(10thCir. H 1992)(holdingthedistrictcourterredinorderingrestitution  ^ inexcessofthespecificamounttowhichthedefendantpled  $ guilty);cf.UnitedStatesv.Akande,200F.3d136,14243(3rd    Cir.1999)(vacatingrestitutionorderforlossescausedby `  conductthatfelloutsidethedatesoftheoffensewherethe &v  indictmentlistedthetimeframeas"onoraboutDecember31, < 1997,"butthepleaagreementandcolloquyestablishedthatthe  offensechargeddidnotoccurbeforeDecember31,1997);United x Statesv.Hayes,32F.3d171,17273(5thCir.1994)(vacating > restitutionorderforlossesincurredbeforethedateofthe T offenseofconviction);UnitedStatesv.Cook,952F.2d1262,  126465(10thCir.1991)(vacatingrestitutionorderforlosses  connectedtoafortythreecountindictmentwherethedefendant V pledguiltytoonlythreecountsbutthedistrictcourt !l  erroneouslyconstruedthelanguageofthepleaagreementtofind "2" thataguiltypleatoonecountwaseffectivelyaguiltypleato $$ allothercounts).Thesuppressedtransactionsclearlyfell n&!& withinthedescriptionoftheoffenseandthetimeframeofthe 4(#( conductofuseorattempteduseofunauthorizedaccessdevices )J%* duringatenmonthperiodtowhichAcostapledguilty. +',  ` Tosummarize,thedistrictcourtwasnotbarredfrom   usingthesuppressedevidenceincalculatingrestitutionaspart  ofAcostassentence.Wearesatisfiedthattheindictment H adequatelydetailedtheoffenseofconvictiontoenablethe  ^ districtcourt,inorderingrestitution,toconsiderthe  $ suppressedevidenceasthatunderlyingtheconductofconviction.    Wearesatisfiedthatalthoughthedistrictcourtdidnot `  explicitlysayitwasconsideringthesuppressedevidenceconduct &v  ofconviction,itdidinfactdosoandthereforedidnoterrin < itsrestitutioncalculation.Accordingly,weholdthattherewas  noplainerrorinthedistrictcourtsuseofthesuppressed x evidencetocalculaterestitution. >  III.CONCLUSION T  ` Thedistrictcourtscalculationsofbothlossand  restitutionareAFFIRMED.