Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02275/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Michael Duane Westmoreland
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MICHAEL DUANE WESTMORELAND, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

F lLbU 

United Stau:s Coun of Appea ·rench Circuit 

AUG 1:3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2275 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. Criminal No. 89-0053 JP 01) 

Ann Steinmetz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, for defendant-appellant. 

Robert J. Gorence, Assistant u.s. Attorney (William L. Lutz, 

United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, for plaintiff-appellee. 

Before LOGAN, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 89-2275 Document: 01019370407 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant Michael Duane Westmoreland appeals the sentence he 

received upon pleading guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, 

theft from an interstate shipment. The only issues in the appeal 

concern whether the district court correctly computed defendant's 

base offense level, specifically its interpretation of "loss" 

under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 

§ 2Bl.l(b)(l) (hereinafter u.s.s.G.), and whether the district 

court erred in refusing to grant a downward departure in sentence. 

From our review of the record we are satisfied that the 

district court's refusal to grant a downward departure was not 

based upon an incorrect belief that it lacked such power. See 

United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d 213, 217-18 (lOth Cir.), reaff'd 

after remand, 905 F.2d 1448 (lOth Cir. 1990). A district court's 

refusal to grant a downward departure in sentence, when it knows 

that it has such power, is not appealable. United States v. 

Richardson, 901 F.2d 867, 869-70 (lOth Cir. 1990); United States 

v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1528-30 (lOth Cir. 1990). Therefore, the 

only issue we consider is the proper interpretation of the loss to 

be calculated under u.s.s.G. § 2Bl.l. 

Defendant's crime involved the theft of his employer's 

tractor-trailer truck loaded with more than 1,000 televisions, 

VCRs, and camcorders. The FBI calculated the value of the 

tractor-trailer and its entire contents at $691,311, and these 

figures are not challenged. If that is the appropriate basis for 

the loss calculation it would add ten points to the base offense 

level of four under the June 15, 1988, version of u.s.s.G. 

§ 2Bl.l(b)(l), and that was the calculation used by the court in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2275 Document: 01019370407 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 2 
assessing the sentence. 1 Defendant contends that the proper 

amount of loss, which the court should have used in its 

calculations, was $10,768, the value of the items that were never 

recovered. Defendant had driven the vehicle, loaded with 

televisions, VCRs, and camcorders, from Los Angeles toward a 

destination in Oklahoma City for his employer. He stopped in 

Albuquerque and there participated in breaking and entering the 

vehicle and removing its contents. He abandoned the vehicle in 

Albuquerque, but reported to his employer that it had been stolen 

in Oklahoma City. 

The specific legal issue, which is a matter of first 

impression in this circuit, is whether "loss" for purposes of 

U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l) is determined solely by the value of the 

items taken in a theft, or whether the figure should be reduced by 

the value of items ultimately recovered by the victim. We believe 

the answer is in the commentary to the Guidelines. u.s.s.G. 

§ 2Bl.l Commentary, Application Note 2, states that "'[l]oss' 

means the value of the property taken, damaged, or destroyed," 

ordinarily measured by its "fair market value." However, if 

conduct is partially completed, such as the theft of a government 

check or money order, "loss refers to the loss that would have 

occurred if the check or money order had been cashed. Similarly, 

if a defendant is apprehended in the process of taking a vehicle, 

1 The court also added a two level increase under u.s.S.G. 

§ 2Bl.l(b)(4) because the offense involved more than minimal 

planning, but subtracted two levels under u.s.s.G. § 3El.l because 

of defendant's acceptance of responsibility. These two adjustments are not in issue on appeal. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2275 Document: 01019370407 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 3 
the loss refers to the value of the vehicle even if the vehicle is . \. 

recovered immediately. " Id. 

The instant situation is clearly analogous to the examples 

given in the Application Note. Here the amount taken was the 

entire vehicle and its contents valued at $691,311. The fact that 

good police work diminished the actual loss to the employer victim 

should not affect the determination of the extent of defendant's 

culpability and responsibility for purposes of sentencing. We 

reject defendant's argument that the three level decrease 

applicable to incomplete attempts, solicitations, or conspiracies 

applies in the instant case. We therefore hold that the court 

properly calculated the amount of the loss under the guidelines 

and the sentence must be AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2275 Document: 01019370407 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 4