Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03697/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Simon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3697

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Victor Simon, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2004

Filed: July 16, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Victor Simon was convicted of one count of interstate transportation of stolen

property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and three counts of mail fraud, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and was sentenced to serve three years’ probation and pay

$7,746 in restitution. He appeals, arguing that the evidence introduced at trial was

insufficient as a matter of law to support his convictions or the amount of restitution

imposed by the district court.1

 We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2004 Entry ID: 1788851 
-2-

I.

Simon was employed in the quality control department of a Gateway

Computers facility in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. His duties included testing

computers and computer components that were returned to Gateway by their original

purchasers. Simon and other Gateway employees in the quality control department

had access to computers and computer components, including central processing units

(CPUs). Gateway did not monitor the locations of individual computers or

components in its Sioux Falls facility. Gateway did notice, however, a decrease in

its overall inventory and thus initiated an internal investigation to determine why a

significant number of computers and computer components were missing. Through

the use of video surveillance, Gateway was able to determine that at least one

employee was stealing computer components. Simon was never videotaped stealing

computers or computer components. Gateway also contacted the F.B.I., which

commenced a criminal investigation. 

The employee who was videotaped stealing computer components, and who

subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of federal crimes, told investigators that he

had purchased computer components from Simon at unusually low prices, leading

him to believe that Simon was also stealing from Gateway. This information, as well

as additional investigation, disclosed that Simon sold numerous computers and

computer components over the internet while employed at the Gateway facility in

Sioux Falls. He shipped the computers and computer components to his customers

via Federal Express or UPS. Ultimately, Simon was indicted and tried for stealing

and selling two Gateway computers and a number of CPUs.

II.

Simon argues first that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the

jury’s conclusion that he stole the computers and CPUs and knew that they were

stolen when he sold them. We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and upholding it if,

Appellate Case: 03-3697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2004 Entry ID: 1788851 
-3-

based on all the evidence and all reasonable inferences, any reasonable juror could

find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Martin, 369

F.3d 1046, 1059 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hamilton, 332 F.3d 1144, 1148-49

(8th Cir. 2003). This deferential standard of review does not require that the evidence

exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt. Durns v. United States, 562 F.2d 542,

546 (8th Cir. 1977). Rather, it is enough that the evidence is sufficient to convince

a reasonable juror that the defendant committed the charged crime. Id. Either direct

or circumstantial evidence properly may provide the basis for a conviction; there is

no requirement that direct evidence be adduced at trial. Id.

The evidence at Simon’s trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s

guilty verdict, showed that the two computers were returned to the Gateway facility

where Simon worked; that their internal and external identification numbers were in

such a condition that it was unlikely that they passed through Gateway’s normal

testing process upon return; and that they were upgraded, between the time they were

returned to Gateway and the time they were sold by Simon, with components bearing

Gateway stickers that were not commonly available on the open market and which

Simon had access to as a result of his employment at Gateway. This circumstantial

evidence is consistent with the government’s theory of the case – that Simon stole the

computers from Gateway before they were tested, upgraded the computers with

components also stolen from Gateway, and then sold the computers for personal gain.

It forms a sufficient basis for a reasonable juror to find Simon guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt of stealing the computers and selling them with the knowledge that

they were stolen. 

Similarly, the evidence adduced at trial indicated that Simon stole and sold

eight CPUs. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s guilty

verdict, showed that the manufacturer of the CPUs, Intel, did not track the disposition

of individual CPUs, but rather tracked CPUs by lot; that reference to the lot number

on the individual CPUs enabled Gateway’s investigators and the F.B.I. to link to

Appellate Case: 03-3697 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2004 Entry ID: 1788851 
-4-

Gateway eight CPUs sold by Simon; that one of the eight processors came from a lot

of CPUs shipped in its entirety to Gateway and which Gateway was not authorized

to resell outside of a complete computer system; that Simon also sold seven CPUs

that came from lots at least portions of which were originally sold to Gateway and

which Gateway was not authorized to resell outside of a complete computer system;

that Simon sold numerous CPUs at such low prices that at least one purchaser was

able to resell them for a significant profit; that Simon had access to these types of

CPUs at Gateway’s Sioux Falls facility; and that upon termination, Simon had ten

CPUs at his desk even though most employees rarely had more than one. A

reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on this evidence, that

Simon used his position at Gateway to illegally secure possession of the CPUs and

then sold them for his personal gain.

III.

Simon next argues that the district court erred in setting the amount of

restitution. We review for clear error the amount of restitution ordered. United States

v. Vanhorn, 344 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir. 2003). The amount of restitution is generally

governed by the amount of loss suffered by the victim of the crime, in this case

Gateway. United States v. Young, 272 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir. 2001). The amount

of loss, however, need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Here

restitution was set at $7,746. The district court valued each computer at $1,793,

which was the original sales price, even though it appears that as configured the

computers could have been sold for considerably more. As for the CPUs, which

Gateway never sold outside of complete computer systems and therefore can be

valued only as a component of a complete system, the district court concluded that

Gateway lost a total of $4,160. The district court found that restitution was due for

one 2.53 GHz processor worth $320, five 2.80 GHz processors worth $600 each, and

two 2.66 GHz processors worth $420 each. There was no credible evidence presented

to the district court calling these values into question.

Appellate Case: 03-3697 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/16/2004 Entry ID: 1788851 
-5-

Simon contends that the real value of the computers and CPUs is what he sold

them for, but we are not persuaded that the district court is bound to accept, as the

quantum of the victim’s loss, the amount of money a convicted thief is willing to

accept to part with his stolen goods. The district court’s computation of the amount

of restitution was not clearly erroneous. 

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, as is the restitution order. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3697 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/16/2004 Entry ID: 1788851