UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byeong Chul CHOI, AKA Edward H. Choi, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
101 F.3d 92·96 Daily Journal DAR 14037·1996 WL 673575·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 30231·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8483
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 22, 199696-50200California356 words

Opinion

Opinion

After pleading guilty to possession of stolen goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 , Byeong Chul Choi appeals his sentence. He argues because the interstate freight company from whom he stole Sony CD players and Nike shoes had limited its liability to $2,894.50, the court erred in determining loss according to the market value of $351,643. This resulted in an eleven point offense level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(L). We affirm.

A district court must first look to market value when determining loss. Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 states, in pertinent part:

Choi first argues that had the police not recovered the stolen property, the loss would have been limited to the amount of liability under the freight company’s insurance contract, and that this amount would be a “reasonable replacement cost” under § 2B1.1. Choi’s calculations omit some important factors. Had the police not recovered the stolen property, it is true that the freight carrier may have only been liable for a contracted amount. But the remaining loss does not just vanish—if the manufacturers’ recovery were limited’ by the freight company’s insurance contract, the manufacturers would lose the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.