United States v. Jolynn May
706 F.3d 1209
9th Cir.2013Background
- Defendants Jason and Jolynn May pled guilty to receipt of stolen mail and mail theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1708.
- District court included USPS prevention expenses in loss for sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 and for restitution.
- USPS expenses arose from policy changes to parcel deliveries after December 13–19, 2010 complaints, extending hours and staffing.
- District court applied an eight-level enhancement for loss over $70,000, combining USPS expenses with $2,104 of unidentified loss.
- Judgment ordered restitution of $69,778, comprising USPS expenses plus a $25 single-victim loss, based on the same loss calculation.
- On appeal, the Mays challenge both the sentencing loss treatment and the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May loss under §2B1.1 proper? | May assert loss limited to offense-related harm. | Loss should exclude prevention costs as non-commissioned harm. | Loss may include reasonably foreseeable consequential loss. |
| Restitution for USPS expenses proper? | MVRA allows restitution for costs arising from the offense. | USPS expenses were not the direct result of the offense of conviction. | Restitution for USPS expenses reversed; not causally tied to the offense of conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (guidelines interpretation standard of review)
- United States v. Peyton, 353 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (relevant conduct may include charged, uncharged, and acquitted conduct)
- United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2000) (causation requirement for loss under § 1B1.3)
- United States v. Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2001) (loss for restitution must flow from the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Baker, 25 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1994) (restitution limited to loss caused by the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2010) (restoration of loss tied to the offense of conviction)
- United States v. Warr, 530 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008) (loss under § 2B1.1 includes reasonably foreseeable consequential loss)
- United States v. Reed, lol not provided (9th Cir. 1996) (cannot restitution for conduct not resulting from offense)
- United States v. Bachsian, 4 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 1993) (possession vs. theft loss analysis in restitution context)