United States v. Frazier
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17742
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Frazier pled guilty to arson on Rosebud Indian Reservation; district court sentenced 37 months and five years' supervised release with restitution of $112,148.58.
- Home was tribal housing; SWA owned and managed it under a rent-to-own contract with MEPA funds ($9,963) held by SWA.
- SWA contributed $25,601 toward the purchase; payoff balance after fire was $28,727.14; Fraziers had paid on contract for 12 years.
- AMERIND calculated replacement-cost loss for SWA at $86,317.59; Family losses totaled $18,493.99; Red Cross and BIA provided $2,355 to the Family.
- The district court awarded full personal-property losses to the Family and extra restitution to Red Cross/BIA; court also awarded $86,317.59 to AMERIND for SWA’s loss; Frazier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Red Cross/BIA payments offset restitution to the Family | Frazier: payments to Red Cross/BIA should reduce Family's restitution | Frazier: third-party payments may be offset but record unclear on purpose | Remand to determine if Red Cross/BIA payments were compensation under MVRA |
| Whether the replacement value was proper for SWA’s loss | Frazier: replacement value overstates actual loss; MEPA should be offset | Government: replacement value reflects loss; district court chose AMERIND figure | District court erred; remand to determine actual loss (likely market value) with proper valuation |
| How to treat the MEPA in restitution | Frazier: MEPA should offset and not double-count | SWA's MEPA may offset but record is unclear | Remand to address MEPA treatment and its effect on loss calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) ( MVRA restitution must reflect victim's actual losses)
- United States v. Petruk, 484 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2007) (limits on restitution to provable losses; no windfalls)
- United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (appropriate valuation methods; FMV vs replacement value)
- United States v. Statman, 604 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010) ( MVRA purpose; compensate victims; de novo on MVRA interpretations)
- United States v. Shugart, 176 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999) (replacement value for unique/rare property when appropriate)
- United States v. Simmonds, 235 F.3d 826 (3d Cir. 2000) (replacement value for furniture; intangible value considerations)