Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 16, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Victor Simon was convicted of interstate transportation of stolen property and mail fraud, receiving a sentence of three years' probation and ordered to pay $7,746 in restitution. He appealed, claiming insufficient evidence to support his convictions and the restitution amount. The case originated in the District of South Dakota, where it was noted that while employed at Gateway Computers, Simon had access to returned computers and components. An internal investigation revealed missing inventory, prompting Gateway to use video surveillance, which did not capture Simon directly stealing items. However, a fellow employee who was recorded stealing testified that he bought components from Simon at low prices, suggesting Simon was also involved in theft. Further investigation revealed Simon sold computers and components online, shipping them via Federal Express or UPS.
On appeal, Simon argued the evidence did not support the jury's finding that he knowingly stole the items sold. The appellate court reviewed the evidence de novo, affirming that it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, allowing for any reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Simon committed the crimes charged. The court emphasized that the standard does not require excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, only that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.
Evidence from Simon's trial supports the jury's guilty verdict, indicating that two computers he sold were returned to Gateway in a condition suggesting they bypassed normal testing. The computers were upgraded with components available only through his employment at Gateway, which aligns with the government's assertion that Simon stole the computers, upgraded them with additional stolen components, and sold them for personal profit.
Additionally, evidence showed Simon stole and sold eight CPUs, linked to Gateway through lot numbers. One CPU was from a lot that Gateway could not sell separately, while the other seven were part of lots originally sold to Gateway under similar restrictions. Simon's access to these CPUs at Gateway and the unusual quantity found at his desk upon termination indicated he misused his position. A reasonable juror could conclude he illegally obtained and sold the CPUs for personal gain.
Simon also argued that the district court wrongly determined the restitution amount. The court reviewed the restitution for clear error, which is based on the loss suffered by Gateway. Restitution was set at $7,746, with each computer valued at its original sales price of $1,793, despite the potential for a higher resale value. The CPUs were valued based on their status as components of complete systems, totaling $4,160, with specific values assigned to each processor type. Simon contended the restitution should reflect the prices he received, but the court was not obliged to accept the lower amounts from a convicted thief. The restitution calculation was upheld as not clearly erroneous.
The judgment of conviction and restitution order against Simon is affirmed. Judge John B. Jones presided over the case. Simon, employed in Gateway's quality control department, had access to computers and components but was never caught on video stealing. Gateway noticed a significant inventory decrease, prompting an internal investigation that revealed employee theft through video evidence. An employee, who pleaded guilty to federal crimes, implicated Simon, stating he purchased components from him at low prices, suggesting Simon was involved in the theft. Simon was indicted for stealing and selling two computers and several CPUs.
During the trial, Simon contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. The review standard requires evidence to be viewed favorably to the verdict, allowing for reasonable inferences that could lead a juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented indicated that the stolen computers were returned to Gateway, had identification numbers suggesting they did not undergo normal testing, and were upgraded with components accessible only to Simon through his employment. This circumstantial evidence supported the government’s assertion that Simon stole and sold the computers knowingly as stolen. Additionally, the trial evidence indicated that Simon also stole and sold eight CPUs.
Evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict indicated that Intel, the CPU manufacturer, tracked CPUs by lot rather than individually. This allowed Gateway's investigators and the FBI to connect eight CPUs sold by Simon to Gateway. One CPU was linked to a lot shipped exclusively to Gateway, which was unauthorized to resell these CPUs outside complete systems. Simon sold seven additional CPUs from lots originally sold to Gateway under similar restrictions. The low prices at which Simon sold these CPUs enabled at least one buyer to resell them for profit. Simon had access to these CPUs at Gateway's Sioux Falls facility and retained ten at his desk upon termination, significantly more than most employees. A reasonable juror could conclude that Simon exploited his position at Gateway to illegally acquire and sell the CPUs for personal gain.
Regarding restitution, Simon argued that the district court erred in its calculation. The restitution amount is determined by the victim's loss, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court set restitution at $7,746, valuing each computer at its original sales price of $1,793, despite potential for higher resale value. For CPUs, the court found a total loss of $4,160, detailing specific values for various processors. No credible evidence challenged these valuations. Simon's assertion that the loss should reflect what he sold the CPUs for was rejected, affirming that the restitution calculation was not clearly erroneous. The judgment of conviction and the restitution order were upheld.
