In United States v. Goldman, No. 19-11135 (Mar. 25,
2020) (Rosenbaum, Tjoflat, Hull), the Court affirmed the term of
imprisonment but vacated the restitution award.
As for the term of imprisonment, the defendant objected to
the district court’s valuation of a stolen gold bar for purposes of the
guideline governing theft of cultural
artifacts in USSG 2B1.5. The Court found
it unnecessary to address the defendant’s argument because the district court
stated that, regardless of the guideline
calculation, it would have imposed the same sentence, and that 40-month sentence
was not substantively unreasonable.
Therefore, any guideline calculation error was harmless.
As for restitution, the Court clarified that the fair
market value of a unique item lacking actual cash value is determined by its
replacement cost. In this case, however,
the district court failed to meaningfully explain how it arrived at its valuation
figure, and the underlying evidence was unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the Court remanded for the
district court to ascertain the amount of restitution consistent with its
opinion.
