How have the sentencing guidelines for theft been interpreted in this case?

Appellant's final contention that the offense level should have been set at five or six, depending on the resolution of the relevant conduct issue, rests upon the definition of "loss" under Guidelines 2B1.1. Section 2B1.1 gives the general sentencing guidelines for theft. ⁶ It covers convictions such as the appellant's which are obtained under 18 U.S.C. 641. The commentary to this section defines "loss" to be "the value of property taken, damaged, or destroyed." Sentencing Guidelines 2B1.1 n. 2. Appellant argues that the "or" is exclusive, i.e., that the value of the property damaged and the amount of money stolen cannot be aggregated in calculating the "loss" due to theft. This argument has little merit. The obvious interpretation of the commentary is that the value of property damaged may be added to the value of property taken when both occur during the same theft. See, e.g., United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1214-15 (11th Cir.1989) ("loss" as used in the context of Guideline 2B1.1 includes property damage to postage machines in addition to the amount actually taken from machines), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1816 (1990).

IV. Conclusion