Court Opinion

ID: 9488228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:39:40.860711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:46.074723
License: Public Domain

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully agree with the majority opinion. Because the property loss valuation provisions of the Guidelines are a bad fit for the kind of crime committed here (in that they focus on the value of the property taken or damaged rather than the extent of actual harm caused by the criminal activity), however, I write to point out an alternative approach. The Guidelines provide for an upward departure where “the monetary value of the property damaged or destroyed may not adequately reflect the extent of the harm caused.” See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.3 application note 4. Of particular relevance here, the Guidelines also provide that “[i]f the defendant’s conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a govern*654mental function, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range to reflect the nature and extent of the disruption and the importance of the governmental function affected.” Id. § 5K2.7.