Opinion

United States v. Lawrence R. Gottfried

  • 58 F.3d 648
  • 313 U.S. App. D.C. 88
  • 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15805
  • 1995 WL 376179
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Filed
Jun 27, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Henderson
On the bench
Silberman, Henderson, Randolph
Cited by
11 cases

government documents, with no market value, considered in terms of replacement costs

How later courts described this case

  • government documents, with no market value, considered in terms of replacement costs

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I fully agree with the majority opinion. Because the property loss valuation provisions of the Guidelines are a bad fit for the kind of crime committed here (in that they focus on the value of the property taken or damaged rather than the extent of actual harm caused by the criminal activity), however, I write to point out an alternative approach. The Guidelines provide for an upward departure where “the monetary value of the property damaged or destroyed may not adequately reflect the extent of the harm caused.” See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.3 application note 4. Of particular relevance here, the Guidelines also provide that “[i]f the defendant’s conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a govern *654 mental function, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range to reflect the nature and extent of the disruption and the importance of the governmental function affected.” Id. § 5K2.7.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.