## Facts

- Eric Anthony Shugart, Brent Patterson, and Jason Wesley Cantrell set fire to the century-old Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church in Elko, Georgia, destroying it.
- A federal grand jury charged them with conspiracy to commit arson (18 U.S.C. § 371) and substantive arson affecting interstate commerce plus aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 844(i), 2).
- After the government presented its case to a jury, defendants pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count; the substantive count was dismissed on the government’s motion.
- At sentencing, a witness testified the cost to rebuild the church using modern construction methods and materials was $116,280.
- The district court ordered joint and several restitution of $116,280 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
- Defendants challenged only the restitution amount and valuation method, not the availability of restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether “value” in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1) can be measured by replacement cost, rather than being limited to fair market (actual cash) value.
2. If replacement cost is permissible, whether the district court clearly erred in finding $116,280 as the replacement cost.

## Decision

- The court held that “value” under § 3663A(b)(1) is not limited to fair market value and may be measured by replacement cost in appropriate circumstances.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in using replacement cost for a unique property lacking a broad, active market.
- The court found no clear error in the $116,280 replacement-cost determination.
- The restitution order and sentences were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Interpretation of “value” in the MVRA is reviewed de novo; the district court’s selection of a valuation method is reviewed for abuse of discretion; and the restitution amount is reviewed for clear error.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1), “value” is flexible and may include replacement cost when fair market value would not adequately measure the victim’s loss.
- Replacement cost is especially appropriate for unique property or property without a readily ascertainable market value (such as an older church building).
- Restitution may be imposed jointly and severally among co-defendants for the same property loss.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a restitution award based on replacement cost, holding that the MVRA’s use of “value” permits replacement-cost valuation when fair market value is not a realistic measure of loss, and concluding the district court’s $116,280 figure was adequately supported.


United States v. Shugart, 176 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999)