(rejecting the defendant’s “invitation to calculate intended losses based upon [the defendant’s] succeeding with his fraud and deception”). To do so would be to encourage the very conduct outlawed by the statute of conviction here. The value of assets concealed serves as relevant evidence in determining intended loss. See Wheeldon, 313 F.3d at 1073 (instructing the district court to determine intended loss based on the value of assets concealed). Holthaus does not dispute the dollar amounts associated with the concealed inheritance, so the value of concealed income constitutes the upper limit “a reasonable person in [Holthaus’s] position could have intended” to keep from his creditors at the time of the fraud. Staples, 410 F.3d at 490; see also Wheeldon, 313 F.3d at 1073, 1073 n. 2 (<HOLDING>). Holthaus failed to offer at sentencing more
holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property holding that to prove loss causation a plaintiff must allege that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that when disclosed negatively affected the value of the security holding where the defendant knows as well as anyone the value of the assets he concealed the intended loss calculation may properly be based upon the value of the assets concealed