USA V. YAFA

9th CircuitMay 15, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 52/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentences of brothers Joshua and Jamie Yafa for securities-fraud convictions, holding that district courts may rely on U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 Application Note 3(B) to use a defendant’s gain as a proxy for loss when actual loss cannot reasonably be determined. Applying Kisor v. Wilkie, the panel found the term “loss” genuinely ambiguous, deemed the commentary’s interpretation reasonable, and concluded it merited controlling deference.

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether the term “loss” in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 is ambiguous such that courts should defer to Application Note 3(B) and use gain as an alternative measure of loss.

Circuit Positions

4th Circuit6th Circuit9th Circuit(this circuit)

Term 'loss' is ambiguous; defer to Application Note 3(B) and allow gain as alternative loss measure.

3rd Circuit

Ordinary meaning of 'loss' controls; do not defer to Application Note 3(B); rely solely on actual loss.

Conflict Summary

The Sixth, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits hold that 'loss' is genuinely ambiguous and defer to Application Note 3(B), allowing gain to substitute for loss when loss is hard to quantify. The Third Circuit holds that 'loss' has an ordinary, unambiguous meaning and rejects deference to the commentary, limiting loss calculations to actual loss.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Joshua Yafa and Jamie Yafa
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Marc Fernich; Marc S. Nurik; Jason L. Liang
Appellee:Daniel E. Zipp; George Manahan; Tara K. McGrath; Andrew R. Haden; Aaron P. Arnzen

Opinion Document