Opinion ID: 782410
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hollinshead

Text: 56 Although McClain is often described as the only federal appeals court case to have considered the application of the NSPA to property deemed stolen under a foreign patrimony law, the issue was actually first encountered by the Ninth Circuit three years before McClain in United States v. Hollinshead, 495 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1974). The facts of Hollinshead are very similar to those in the case at hand. Hollinshead, a dealer in pre-Columbian artifacts, arranged with one Alamilla, a co-conspirator, to procure such artifacts in Central America, and to finance Alamilla in doing so. Id. at 1155. Once the artifacts were obtained, they were shipped to Hollinshead in the United States. See id. 57 Hollinshead was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. See id. The trial centered on a particular artifact that had been found in a Mayan ruin in the jungle of Guatemala and eventually shipped to Hollinshead. See id. The artifact was stolen as defined by the NSPA because under Guatemalan law all such artifacts are the property of the Republic, and may not be removed without permission of the government. Id. As occurred in this case, the district court had received testimony regarding the law of Guatemala as applied to such artifacts. See id. 58 The Ninth Circuit was not presented in Hollinshead with a direct attack on the application of the NSPA to cases involving patrimony laws; that was not the basis of the defendant's appeal. However, the Ninth Circuit's discussion indicates its acceptance of the prosecution's theory in Hollinshead: that an object is stolen within the meaning of the NSPA if it is taken in violation of a patrimony law. See id. at 1156. We are aware of no other federal appeals court that has reached this issue. 59 The Second Circuit has rarely addressed McClain, and has never decided whether the holding of McClain is the law in this Circuit. See United States v. Long Cove Seafood, 582 F.2d 159, 163, 165 (2d Cir.1978) ( Long Cove ); United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1999) ( Steinhardt ). 5 Although Schultz asserts that these cases support his position, we disagree with his interpretation of these precedents. 60