United States v. Shumway
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
112 F.3d 1413 (1997)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Earl Shumway (defendant) was experienced in looting archaeological sites. That is, he engaged in illegally finding, excavating, and selling archaeological artifacts for profit. Shumway and two others visited two separate archaeological sites, Dop-Ki Cave and Horse Rock Ruin, to loot them. Shumway excavated and removed a burial blanket that had been wrapped around the remains of an infant from Dop-Ki and sandals and a sleeping mat from Horse Rock Ruin. Shumway was indicted and convicted for violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (the act). At trial, the government (plaintiff) established, through the testimony of two archaeologists, that the archaeological value and cost of restoration and repair totaled $137,200 based on the cultural, scientific, and spiritual damage caused by Shumway’s taking of the artifacts. As a result, the sentencing judge implemented a sentencing enhancement of nine points with respect to Shumway’s offense level pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines guidance for offenses in which the property taken was valued at over $120,000. The court used this method rather than the fair market value because the fair market value was a mere $9,122 and did not adequately reflect the damage caused. The district court sentenced Shumway to serve 78 months in prison. Shumway appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brorby, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.