Opinion ID: 170385
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue of Ownership

Text: Ary argues the district court erred by including in the calculation of loss nineteen artifacts Ary sold at auction from his personal account. Although he concedes there was sufficient evidence to prove loss as to many of the items listed in the PSR, he argues the government offered no proof of ownership either at trial or at the sentencing hearing as to these nineteen artifacts. These artifacts can be organized into two groups. The first group includes fifteen items. All but two of these artifacts were entered into the Cosmosphere database and were sold at auction under Ary's personal account. [8] The second group of items were also sold at auction from Ary's personal account. These included an Astro Maneuvering Unit (AMU) Shell, a 70 mm black and white uncut film of Apollo 10, a 70 mm film of Apollo 16, and a 70 mm film roll uncut Magazine V of Apollo 11. The Cosmosphere, however, never entered the items into their inventory. The government met its burden of proving ownership by a preponderance of the evidence as to the fifteen artifacts in the first group. [9] At the sentencing hearing, Michael Mataya, a criminal investigator for the NASA Office of the Inspector General, testified for the government. Through Mataya, the government offered into evidence an Excel spreadsheet detailing items missing from the Cosmosphere's collection. Many of the items on the list were not included in the indictment. Mataya testified, however, he was comfortable that the information in the spreadsheet was accurate. The spreadsheet catalogues information including the Cosmosphere inventory numbers assigned to the artifacts, the dates the items were acquired, the methods of acquisition, and information as to the last known status for the missing artifacts. Thirteen of these items were officially entered into the Cosmosphere inventory, proving ownership by either the Cosmosphere itself or a United States Government entity such as NASA. For example, Mataya's spreadsheet shows that food items were acquired by the Cosmosphere in May of 1981. The food items were given a unique Cosmosphere inventory number of 2090. The spreadsheet indicated the items were transferred from the National Air and Space Museum. The food items were subsequently sold by Ary at the Superior Auction in 2000 from Ary's personal account. The acrylic from Jim Lovell's couch and the Apollo 10 Lucite do not have inventory numbers. Evidence in the record, however, indicates these items were produced by the Cosmosphere. Thus, ownership can be inferred and their inclusion in the loss calculation was not clear error. Proof of ownership for the second group of items, however, is not supported by similar evidence. The AMU Shell sold by Ary did not appear in the Cosmosphere's inventory database and information on the date or method of acquisition is not in the record. Standing alone, the lack of an inventory number or documentation would not necessarily defeat a claim of ownership. The government contends that the Cosmosphere received an AMU Unit from NASA and ownership can therefore be inferred. There is no particularized evidence, however, to connect the AMU Shell sold by Ary with the AMU Unit transferred to the Cosmosphere. [10] The AMU Shell was valued at $800. This amount must be deducted from the amount of loss calculation. The three 70 mm films in the second grouping were acquired from NASA but never entered into the Cosmosphere's inventory. At the sentencing hearing, evidence was introduced that NASA had no official protocol by which these films would be given to individuals; instead, NASA policy was to give them to institutions. Mataya testified that although he had never seen any documentary evidence suggesting the films belonged to NASA or the Cosmosphere, museum staff believed these items were part of their collection based on recollections of seeing the films in boxes at the museum. Importantly, the district court determined there was insufficient evidence of ownership to award restitution on the films. It therefore reduced the total amount of restitution by the value of the six films at issue at that hearing. [11] District courts are to make factual findings at restitution hearings by the preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). [12] Because the government could not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Ary stole the films, they cannot be used to calculate the amount of loss. See United States v. Schild, 269 F.3d 1198, 1200 (10th Cir.2001). Although the district court found insufficient evidence to establish ownership of six films, three were included in the PSR's calculation of loss. The Apollo 10 black and white film was valued at $2,500, the Apollo 11 film was valued at $8,750, and the Apollo 16 film was valued at $25,000. A total of $36,250, therefore, must be deducted from the loss calculation. The district court concluded the probation officer had appropriately calculated the amount of loss for the purposes of sentencing. As a result, the district court stated I am finding that the 12-level enhancement is appropriate; that the amount of loss does fall somewhere between $200[,000] and $400,000, and as a result of that the offense level is correctly calculated. [13] R. Vol. 19 at 158. The PSR lists numerous items and the dollar value associated with the loss. It does not, however, total these values but instead concludes the loss is greater than $200,000. The parties interpret this finding differently. The government contends the PSR's loss calculation totals $268,074. Ary, on the other hand, submits that the elements of loss totals $238,092. We need not resolve this dispute. Subtracting the value of the three film items improperly included in the PSR and the AMU Shell from Ary's figure of $238,092, the amount of loss remains greater than $200,000. Therefore, the district court's error in calculating the amount of loss was harmless.