IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11215

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD HAMPTON, III,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-245-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Hampton, III, pleaded guilty to theft of mail by a postal employee,

a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709. He was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment

and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution in

the amount of $166,116.47. Hampton challenges the loss calculation and the

restitution order. He argues that the evidence was not sufficient to show that

he was responsible for four of the seven Express Mail parcels upon which the

loss calculation and restitution order were based. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 12-11215

We review the district court’s calculation of the amount of loss under

United States Sentencing Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) for clear error. United

States v. Sanders, 343 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2003). Our review of the district

court’s “quantum of an award of restitution is for abuse of discretion” and

review of its factual findings is for clear error. United States v. Sharma, 703

F.3d 318, 322 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 30, 2012) (No. 12-1312).

The presentence report (PSR) reflected the following: On May 21, 2009,

the owner of Tilak Jewelers (Tilak), in Irving, Texas, contacted United States

Postal Inspector M. Dotson and informed him that he had not received several

Express Mail parcels that had been mailed to his business. The parcels

contained jewelry. The undisputed evidence showed that in July 2007, Hampton

became the employee solely responsible for picking up the Express Mail from

that station. On February 18, 2010, postal inspectors placed a “bogus” Express

Mail parcel addressed to Tilak into the mail system. The bogus package

contained imitation earrings. Hampton was seen leaving the postal station with

the bogus parcel. Hampton was subsequently detained and interviewed; he

admitted to stealing three Express Mail parcels in 2009.

In this case, the PSR set forth the evidence relied upon in making the loss

determination, and the district court was “in a unique position to assess the

evidence and estimate the loss based upon that evidence”; the court was required

only to “make a reasonable estimate of the loss.” § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(C)). 

Hampton admitted to stealing three Express Mail parcels containing jewelry in

2009 and did not deny taking the bogus parcel. The information in the PSR was

derived from Hampton’s admissions and investigative reports prepared by the

U.S. Postal Inspection Service as well as interviews with the Postal Inspector. 

The district court’s finding that Hampton was responsible for at least four more

thefts of parcels from a route for which he was solely responsible is plausible in

light of the evidence as a whole. See Sanders, 343 F.3d at 520. Moreover,

Hampton’s challenge to the district court’s calculation of the amount he owed as

2

 Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 12-11215

restitution is likewise unavailing because our review of the record shows no

abuse of discretion. See Sharma, 703 F.3d at 322.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2013