United States v. Jarred Alexander Goldman
953 F.3d 1213
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Gold Bar 27, a unique 17th‑century shipwreck gold ingot from the Santa Margarita, was on long‑term “lift a gold bar” display at the Mel Fisher Maritime Museum and handled by millions of visitors.
- In 2010 Richard Johnson stole the bar (with Jarred Goldman as lookout); Johnson later sawed off pieces for cash and the bar was effectively destroyed.
- The Museum assigned a $556,000 value to the bar using an internal “point” system; insurer AXA valued it at roughly $101,165 based on melt value plus premiums derived from auction comparables.
- Johnson pleaded guilty and stipulated to a $556,000 value in his proffer; Goldman went to trial, was convicted, and both were ordered joint and several restitution (~$570k–$580k) and prison sentences (Goldman 40 months).
- Goldman appealed the restitution valuation and the loss amount used in the Sentencing Guidelines; the district court had relied on the Museum CEO’s testimony and accepted the $556,000 figure but asserted it would have imposed the same sentence even if the value were different.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of "value" under the MVRA for a unique museum artifact | Replacement cost is appropriate when fair market value is unavailable or unreliable | Market/auction comparables or melt value should govern; Museum’s point system is unreliable | Replacement cost is the correct standard where cash value is unavailable or unreliable; court reaffirmed Shugart rule |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support $556,000 restitution based on Museum point system | Museum valuation and Johnson’s earlier stipulation support restitution | Museum CEO lacked foundation; point system unexplained; AXA’s lower valuation undermines $556k | District court erred: it relied on unsupported Museum testimony; restitution vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearing to establish replacement cost |
| Use of loss amount in Guidelines sentencing calculation | PSI and museum valuation justify >$550k loss and corresponding enhancement | True loss likely much lower (e.g., ~$95k–$150k) yielding a lower guideline range | Affirmed sentence: district court stated it would have imposed same sentence even if value changed and the sentence was substantively reasonable (Keene harmless‑error approach) |
| Whether victims may unilaterally fix loss amounts | Victim testimony about impact and valuation is admissible evidence of loss | Victims cannot simply determine their own losses without evidentiary foundation | Victim valuation alone is insufficient; district court must assess and rely on admissible evidence establishing replacement cost |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shugart, 176 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999) (use replacement cost where fair market value is unavailable or unreliable)
- United States v. Genschow, 645 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011) (endorsing replacement cost for unique or nonmarket property)
- United States v. Steele, 897 F.3d 606 (4th Cir. 2018) (defining replacement cost as cost of a substitute equivalent asset)
- United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000) (district courts may make reasonable loss estimates when precise valuation is impossible)
- United States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (restitution must be based on defendant‑caused loss and court must explain its calculation)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (if court would have imposed same sentence despite error and sentence is substantively reasonable, error is harmless)