United States v. Kaplan, No. 15-30213 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Kaplan and Strycharske were convicted of charges related to their quest to manufacture homemade hash oil and the resulting fire that severely injured six victims and killed one victim due to complications arising out of her injuries. On appeal, defendants challenged their 36-month sentence and final judgment of restitution in the amount of $2,771,929 on the ground that the district court erred by calculating the restitution award using replacement value instead of fair market value. The court joined its sister circuits in concluding that fair market value generally provides the best measure to ensure restitution in the “full amount” of the victim’s loss, but that “replacement value” is an appropriate measure of destroyed property under 18 U.S.C. 3663A(b)(1)(B) where the fair market value is either difficult to determine or would otherwise be an inadequate or inferior measure of the value necessary to make the victim whole. In this case, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in using replacement value to calculate the value of destroyed personal belongings like clothes, furniture, and home appliances. The court rejected Strycharske's contentions that the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact when it stated the apartment contained 64 cans of butane and that an open flame was involved; that the district court made a highly inflammatory analogy that prejudiced his sentencing; and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Jesse Kaplan’s and Daniel Strycharske’s sentences of imprisonment and the district court’s award of restitution in a case in which an explosion during hash oil manufacturing engulfed an apartment building complex in flames and caused severe injuries and one death. The panel held that district courts have discretion in calculating restitution, and that while fair market value generally provides the best measure to ensure restitution in the full amount of the victim’s loss, replacement value is an appropriate measure of destroyed property under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B), where the fair market value is either difficult to determine or would otherwise be an inadequate or inferior measure of the value. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in using replacement value to calculate the value of destroyed personal belongings like clothes, furniture, and home appliances. The panel held that the district court was not required to give additional notice of an upward departure, where the presentence report specifically put the defendants on notice that an upward departure may apply, and that the district court did not commit plain error where it upwardly departed only on grounds stated in the PSR. The panel held that Kaplan’s 36-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The panel rejected Strycharske’s contentions that the district court UNITED STATES V. KAPLAN 3 made clearly erroneous factual findings, made an inflammatory analogy that prejudiced his sentencing, and that his 36-month sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.