18 U.S.C. § 2248

Mandatory restitution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter.(b)Scope and Nature of Order.—(1)Directions.—The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay to the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court pursuant to paragraph (2).(2)Enforcement.—An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A.(3)Definition.—For purposes of this subsection, the term “full amount of the victim’s losses” includes any costs incurred by the victim for—(A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care;(B) physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation;(C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses;(D) lost income;(E) attorneys’ fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order; and(F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense.(4)Order mandatory.—(A) The issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory.(B) A court may not decline to issue an order under this section because of—(i) the economic circumstances of the defendant; or(ii) the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive compensation for his or her injuries from the proceeds of insurance or any other source.(c)Definition.—For purposes of this section, the term “victim” means the individual harmed as a result of a commission of a crime under this chapter, including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.(Added Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, § 40113(a)(1), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1904; amended Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 205(b), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1231.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(1), inserted “or 3663A” after “3663”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(2)(A), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The order of restitution under this section shall direct that—

“(A) the defendant pay to the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court, pursuant to paragraph (3); and

“(B) the United States Attorney enforce the restitution order by all available and reasonable means.”

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(2)(B), struck out “by victim” after “Enforcement” in heading and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “An order of restitution also may be enforced by a victim named in the order to receive the restitution in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action.”

Subsec. (b)(4)(C), (D). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(2)(C), struck out subpars. (C) and (D), which related to court’s consideration of economic circumstances of defendant in determining schedule of payment of restitution orders, and court’s entry of nominal restitution awards where economic circumstances of defendant do not allow for payment of restitution, respectively.

Subsec. (b)(5) to (10). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(2)(D), struck out pars. (5) to (10), which related, respectively, to more than 1 offender, more than 1 victim, payment schedule, setoff, effect on other sources of compensation, and condition of probation or supervised release.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(3), (4), redesignated subsec. (f) as (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) relating to proof of claim.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(3), struck out subsecs. (d) and (e) which read as follows:

“(d) Modification of Order.—A victim or the offender may petition the court at any time to modify a restitution order as appropriate in view of a change in the economic circumstances of the offender.

“(e) Reference to Magistrate or Special Master.—The court may refer any issue arising in connection with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate or special master for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue by the court.”

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104–132, § 205(b)(4), redesignated subsec. (f) as (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 211, Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1241, provided that: “The amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle A (§§ 201–211) of title II of Pub. L. 104–132, see Short Title of 1996 Amendment note set out under section 3551 of this title] shall, to the extent constitutionally permissible, be effective for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 24, 1996].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 72 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: United States v. Tsosie

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Tsosie (2011) ca9 · cites it 22× “Second, he argues that the award of the victim's mother's expenses exceeded the District Court's authority under 18 U.S.C. § 2248 and so constitutes an unlawful sentence.”

United States v. Evers (2012) ca6 · cites it 2× “2011) (holding under 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (b)(3), a restitution statute for sexual abuse crimes with an identical definition of “victim,” that a mother’s travel expenses incurred in visiting her victimized daughter at boarding school to offer emotional support were covered losses…”

United States v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg, United States of America v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg (2005) ca4 · cites it 2× “In Follet, the court vacated an order requiring the defendant to pay restitution to a third-party — but the restitution order was issued pursuant to a very different statute, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (2000). That statute required the defendant to pay the victim the "full amount…”

Lagos v. United States (2018) scotus “” See 18 U. S. C. §§2248 (b), 2259(b), 2264(b), 2327(b).”

United States v. George Thunderhawk (2017) ca8 · cites it 5× “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2248 (a), (b)(4). The order of restitution “shall be issued and enforced in accordance with [18 U.”

United States v. George Koutsostamatis (2020) ca5 · cites it 2× “1904 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 2248 ). Two years later, restitution became mandatory for a much larger set of federal crimes under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), Pub.”

United States v. Michael Norwood (2022) ca3 · cites it 2× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (statutory notes). 3 The statute that governed criminal restitution before the MVRA was the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982.”

United States v. Jacob De La Fuente (2003) ca9 “18 U.S.C. § 2248 (b)(3); see also Follet, 269 F.”

United States v. Gary D. Bollin, United States of America v. Ernst N. Tietjen, United States of America v. James Gormley (2001) ca4 “” 18 U.S.C. § 2248 , statutory notes. The circuits are split on whether applying the MVRA to criminal conduct committed before the MVRA's enactment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.”

United States v. Timmy Cliatt (2003) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 3664 3 and the statute creating the right to restitution in that case, 18 U.S.C. § 2248 . Follet, 269 F.3d at 999-1000 .”

United States v. Elson (2009) ca6 “2001) (“The statutory notes under 18 U.S.C. § 2248 provide that the MVRA, including § 3663A, are to be effective to the extent constitutionally possible for .”

United States v. Kenneth J. Schulte (2001) ca6 “The statutory notes under 18 U.S.C. § 2248 provide that the MVRA, including § 3663A, are to be effective to the extent constitutionally possible for sentencings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after April 24,1996.”

Show all 72 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.