Without the benefit of a plea agreement, Jameel Casey pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers. Casey was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and to a three-year term of supervised release. Casey challenges the district court’s loss determination. Specifically, he contends that the loss determination should have been based on the “actual” loss to the lending institutions instead of the “intended” loss.

The amount of loss is a factual finding reviewed for clear error; the method by which losses are determined is reviewed de novo. United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2000). Due to his fraudulent actions, Casey helped customers obtain loans that they would not otherwise have qualified. Casey had no control over repaying the loans if the customers defaulted. Consequently, due to his fraudulent actions, Casey put the lending institutions at risk for the full line of credit extended to the consumers. Thus, the district court did not err in assessing Casey’s offense level based on the intended loss, rather than the actual loss, figure of the full line of credit extended by the lending *390 institutions to the consumers. See United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 301 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Tedder, 81 F.3d 549, 551 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.