United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1204 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUNAID GULZAR, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:22-cr-00018 — Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge. ____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 2023 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 2024 ____________________

Before WOOD, KIRSCH, and LEE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Junaid Gulzar was convicted of wire fraud and sentenced to a below-Sentencing Guidelines term of 18 months’ imprisonment. Central to the Guidelines calcula- tions was the determination of the amount of the victim’s “loss.” A fraud defendant’s offense level is increased under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) if the “loss” amount exceeds $6,500. At issue is when the loss should be measured. The district court, relying on the Guidelines commentary, determined that the 2 No. 23-1204 victim’s loss here should be measured at the time she detected the loss. Because the district court was correct to defer to the Guidelines commentary, we affirm. I In 2021, Junaid Gulzar convinced Ariana Small, a child- hood friend, to invest money in Indiana gas stations that he would own and operate. He persuaded her and her father-in- law to wire $310,000, and he promised her that he would in- vest the money and pay her back on fixed dates. But instead of investing the money, Gulzar wagered it at a Michigan ca- sino. Small soon suspected something had gone awry. Under their agreement, Gulzar owed her a certain amount by June 1, but he missed the deadline and fabricated excuses for the de- lay. On June 4, Small sent text messages to Gulzar accusing him of scamming her. Over the next several days, she re- peated her demands for repayment and threatened to report him for bank fraud. On June 11, at Gulzar’s request, Small drove from New York to Indiana to collect payment. That day, he handed her several checks but only $115,000 cleared the bank. On June 23, he wired her another $1,500. Small took legal recourse to recoup her investment. She reported Gulzar to the police, and on July 2, she sued him in Indiana for fraud. At his deposition in that case three weeks later, Gulzar offered to repay Small and her family. The next day, he paid her $268,500—the entire outstanding amount plus $75,000 in profit. In March 2022, Gulzar was charged with three counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Six months later, a jury found him guilty of each count. No. 23-1204 3

At sentencing, the parties disputed the appropriate loss amount. Fraud offenses carry a base offense level of 7 but are subject to an increase depending on the amount of “loss” caused by the defendant. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1) & (b)(1). Note 3(A) to § 2B1.1 clarifies that “loss” means either the greater of the victim’s actual loss or intended loss. Actual loss means “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that re- sulted from the offense,” § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A)(i); intended loss is “the pecuniary harm that the defendant purposely sought to inflict,” id. cmt. n.3(A)(ii). The commentary further in- structs that the loss amount should be reduced by the money returned to the victim before the crime was detected. Id. cmt. n.3(E)(i). The district court considered three competing loss amounts, each corresponding to a different offense level. First, the probation officer who prepared the Presentence In- vestigation Report recommended a loss amount of $195,000— reflecting the full amount Small gave Gulzar, less wha