United States v. Dominic Demarcus Steele
897 F.3d 606
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Dominic Steele, a USPS mail handler, pleaded guilty to one count of postal theft for stealing GameFly video game discs shipped through the mail.
- GameFly reported 1,390 missing discs, claimed 100 were recovered, and estimated an average replacement cost of $40 per disc plus $1 shipping per disc, totaling $52,990 in the PSR.
- At sentencing the Government offered GameFly’s Victim Impact Statement but produced no underlying business records; USPS OIG agent Caviness testified he did not verify GameFly’s $40 figure and that agents recovered 341 discs.
- Steele presented evidence (trade-in receipts and pricing websites) suggesting used-game fair market value was substantially below $40.
- The district court accepted GameFly’s replacement-cost estimate, ordered $52,990 restitution, and Steele appealed the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government/GameFly) | Defendant's Argument (Steele) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation method for restitution under the MVRA | Use victim’s replacement-cost estimate reflecting cost to put new discs into circulation | Use fair market value for fungible, used goods; replacement cost overcompensates defendant | Fair market value is generally the appropriate measure for fungible goods; district court erred in using unsubstantiated replacement cost |
| Burden of proof for amount of loss | Victim’s statement suffices; Government relied on victim’s loss figure | Government must prove amount of loss; defendant need only rebut after Government meets its burden | Government bears initial burden to prove loss by a preponderance; here it failed to meet that burden |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting restitution amount | The victim’s loss estimate and PSR support the restitution figure | Victim provided no supporting business records; Government adduced testimony that undermined victim’s estimate | Victim’s unsupported estimate and Government’s witness testimony were insufficient; remand required for factual findings and proper valuation |
| Allocation of evidentiary burden at sentencing | Court suggested defendant should subpoena victim records if needed | Defendant argued it was Government’s responsibility to present proof of loss | Court misallocated burden; burden never shifted because Government did not satisfy initial obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (district court may select valuation measure that best serves MVRA)
- United States v. Frazier, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (fair market value usually serves MVRA’s compensatory purpose)
- United States v. Kaplan, 839 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.) (district court has discretion to choose valuation method for restitution)
- United States v. Ferdman, 779 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir.) (victim’s unverified statements insufficient for restitution)
- United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219 (4th Cir.) (Government must present evidence of loss before burden shifts to defendant)
- United States v. Mullins, 971 F.2d 1138 (4th Cir.) (victim’s unsupported estimate insufficient; remand required for factual findings)