Davis

MEMORANDUM *

LeAndre Davis appeals his 87-month prison sentence on three grounds: (1) the district court did not perform the calculation for quantity of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (2000) as precisely as it might have; (2) the two victims of natural disaster Davis defrauded (by promising to rebuild their houses, accepting partial payment, and then failing to perform the promised work) were not “vulnerable” as that term is used in U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 *489 (2000); and (3) the district court failed to apply the money laundering guideline in effect at the time of sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 (2001), and therefore, to his detriment, failed to group Davis’ fraud and money laundering counts. We affirm the district court’s sentencing decision.

With regard to Davis’ first contention, we find the district court’s quantity of loss calculation was sufficiently precise under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 9 (2000) (“[L]oss need not be determined with precision. The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information.”). Additionally, there is no evidence in the record to support Davis’ claim that intermediaries have higher profit…