United States v. McCarty
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26262
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- McCarty, with a long history of mental illness, was convicted for stealing two cultural heritage objects (the Freeman and Maxwell Codes) from the Hayes Center.
- The district court applied multiple Guidelines enhancements, increasing his offense level and resulting in a 46-month sentence.
- Evidence at sentencing included uncharged conduct and testimony from Special Agent Holloway about McCarty's prior behavior and the codes' value.
- McCarty had prior state convictions for theft and related offenses, including theft of lost or mislaid property (a 1865 map) and other antique books.
- McCarty challenges the sentencing enhancements and asserts ineffective assistance/mental-health considerations; the government argues the enhancements are supported and the record adequately accounts for mental health.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the loss value supported a ten-level enhancement | McCarty argues value did not exceed $120,000, so only eight levels apply. | McCarty contends district court intended and properly applied the ten-level enhancement. | Ten-level enhancement properly applied. |
| Whether the pecuniary gain enhancement was proper | The theft was not for pecuniary gain; no value adds up in the moment of theft. | Evidence showed intent to profit from selling rare books, including prior discussions and sale of the Freeman Code. | Enhancement properly applied. |
| Whether the pattern of misconduct enhancement was warranted | Two or more cultural-heritage conduct incidents justified the enhancement. | There was no two qualifying acts involving cultural heritage resources; error. | Enhancement erroneously applied but harmless error; no remand. |
| Whether the district court properly considered uncharged/unconvicted conduct | Rule against considering uncharged acts; improper hearsay at sentencing. | Guidelines authorize evaluating such conduct with reliable evidentiary basis. | Properly considered; hearsay exceptions allowed in sentencing. |
| Whether McCarty's mental health issues were adequately weighed | District court did not sufficiently account for mental-health history. | Court acknowledged and weighed mental health in the §3553 factors and possible downward variance. | Reasonable consideration of mental health; sentence upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) (ambiguities in loss calculation reviewed de novo; deference to district court's loss estimation)
- United States v. Smith, 429 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2005) (remedy for government’s pre-sentencing argument shortcomings; continued sentencing date)
- United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (harmless error standard for sentencing errors)
- United States v. Vicol, 514 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2008) (harmless error applied to sentencing when within-range sentence would be same)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences; factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))