## Facts

- James L. Quarrell and Michael Quarrell, with a cousin, were found excavating an archaeological site in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico known as the East Fork site, a Mimbres–Mogollon ruin on public property since 1967.
- A Forest Service officer discovered recent disturbance at the site and used a remote sensor to monitor access; officers responded when the sensor triggered and encountered the defendants excavating.
- Officers found equipment and items consistent with looting, including a probe, shovels, a firearm, and pieces of Mimbres pottery.
- The United States charged the defendants with violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) by excavating/removing archaeological resources on public lands without a permit and conspiring to violate ARPA under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- The defendants admitted excavating and removing ancient artifacts without governmental permission, but claimed they believed they were on private land; they did not claim to have permission from any private owner.
- The district court granted a government motion in limine barring a defense that a belief about private land status negated liability; it allowed evidence that defendants believed they were lawfully excavating, but defendants presented none.
- A jury convicted both defendants and found damage exceeding $500; the district court imposed prison sentences, applied an obstruction-of-justice enhancement to James, denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit to Michael, and ordered restitution including “archaeological value.”

## Issues

1. Whether ARPA requires proof that defendants knew the archaeological resources were located on public or Indian land.
2. Whether a mistake-of-fact defense based only on a belief the site was on private land could negate ARPA’s mens rea.
3. Whether the restitution award (including archaeological value) and the sentencing determinations were properly supported.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held ARPA does not require proof that defendants knew the land status was public or Indian; the government need only prove knowing excavation/removal of archaeological resources without a permit.
- The court upheld the district court’s limitation on the mistake-of-fact theory because the defendants lacked any asserted authorization to excavate even on private land.
- The court remanded for resentencing, concluding the restitution methodology (as used) was an abuse of discretion and that sentencing enhancements required more specific findings.

## Legal Principles

- Under ARPA, “knowingly” applies to the defendant’s conduct and the character of the items as archaeological resources, not to knowledge of the public/Indian land status; land status functions as a jurisdictional fact.
- A mistake-of-fact defense negates mens rea only if, assuming the defendant’s believed facts were true, the conduct would be lawful; a belief that land is private is insufficient absent a belief of lawful authorization to excavate.
- Restitution in ARPA cases may include archaeological value, but valuation must be grounded in record-supported methods; speculative estimates based on a hypothetical scientific excavation are improper.
- When imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on perjury, the sentencing court must make specific findings identifying the false, willful, and material statements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the ARPA and conspiracy convictions because ARPA does not require proof that defendants knew the site was on public land and because the asserted private-land mistake would not have made their unauthorized excavation lawful; however, it vacated parts of the sentences and remanded due to an improperly supported restitution calculation and insufficiently specific sentencing findings.


United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002)