testimony at sentencing, bank records, and Hatchett’s admissions were sufficient to establish the number of victims by a preponderance of the evidence. Hatchett also contests the court’s decision to count as separate victims each member of the married couples who responded to the FBI questionnaire. Although we apparently have not yet had occasion to decide whether it is appropriate to count married persons as individual victims to a defendant’s fraudulent scheme, see United States v. Straw, 616 F.3d 737, 741-43 (8th Cir.2010), we cannot say that the district court erred here given the facts of this case. The court counted as separate victims only those married individuals who had reported losses to the FBI questionnaire. See United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1275 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The government presented sufficient evidence
holding that a wife could be held liable for the negligent failure to prevent or warn the victims about her husbands sexually abusive behavior when the wife had actual knowledge or special reason to know that the husband was likely to abuse a particular person or persons holding that the equal rights amendment requires that wife as well as husband be permitted to recover for loss of consortium recognizing that husband and wife count as separate victims where each sustains part of the actual loss holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding that both husband and wife are obligated to support each other based on relative ability to pay