United States v. Byors, Docket No. 08-4811-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2009) (found here)
On appeal, Byors argued that the district court erred in: (1) not offsetting the loss attributable to his fraud by amounts that represented legitimate investment in his business; and (2) applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice relating to an offense underling his money laundering offense but not the money laundering offense itself (an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit).
With regard to the first issue, the Second Circuit found that the "plain language of Application Note 3(E) [of Section 2B1.1] readily disposes of defendant's argument." Specifically, the "Guidelines do not require a loss to be offset by any legitimate expenditures . . . but rather [only] by 'value' that has been conferred on victims in the form of money or property returned or services rendered" (emphasis in original).
With regard to the second issue, the Second Circuit found that the issue revolved around the question of what to do "where a defendant has obstructed the investigation or prosecution of an underlying offense but has not obstructed the investigation or prosecution of a subsequent money laundering offense." The Second Circuit solved that riddle by closely reading Sections 3C1.1 and 2S1.1 together, leading it to conclude that the defendant's obstructive conduct related not only to the offense of conviction, but also to relevant conduct or at least an offense that was closely related to the money laundering offense.