Notes of Decisions
Cited in
1,491
cases (
109 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
Huml v. Vlazny, 2006 WI 87 (Wis. 2006).
Huml v. Vlazny, 2006 WI 87 (Wis. 2006).
· cites it 18× “20(1r) was based in part on the federal VWPA, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (h) (1982 & Supp. IV 1987).”
Barrett N. Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 11× “The district court overruled the objection as moot on the basis that the court was applying the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , which was in effect in 1994, in ordering Wein-berger to pay full restitution to the victims and to the IRS.”
United States v. Leahy, 438 F.3d 328 (3rd Cir. 2006).
· cites it 10× “18 U.S.C. § 3663 . 4 Passed by Congress in 1996, the MVRA augmented and partially superseded the VWPA by requiring district courts to impose restitution on defendants convicted of certain offenses without regard to their ability to pay.”
United States v. Jerry D. Smith, 944 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 13× “The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3664. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.”
United States v. Joshua Sizemore, 850 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 14× “The probation office assessed restitution, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , in the amount of $230,839.”
United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 2009).
· cites it 22× “John Kyi, has explained that “the CVRA’s definition of a crime victim is based on the federal restitution statutes,” citing the Victim and Witness Protection Act (‘VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act *461 (“MVRA”), 18 U.”
United States v. Nancy Jacques, 321 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2003).
· cites it 12× “In a rider to the plea agreement, Jacques agreed that “[t]he Court may order that the defendant make restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 .” The Presentence Investigation Report (presentence report), prepared by the Probation Office, contained the following information pertinent…”
United States v. Battista, 575 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 14× “§ 3663A, or the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . The court determined that Battista’s crime was covered by the MVRA, which applies to “offense[s] committed by fraud or deceit,” 18 U.”
Terrence Johnson v. Phil Bredesen, 624 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 8× “1994) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 , 3664). Although an order of restitution under the VWPA is typically paid to and for the benefit of the victim of the crime, id.”
John W. Gall v. United States, 21 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 9× “The district court held that Gall’s restitution was properly ordered as a special condition of supervised release, not as restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (‘VWPA”), 18 U.”
United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 1999).
· cites it 15× “, to obtain a civil judgment in the amount of the Rostoffs’ outstanding obligations under an order of restitution previously issued pursuant to a provision of the Victim Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . We affirm in part and vacate and remand to the district…”
United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 10× “shall order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense, unless, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , the court determines that restitution would not be appropriate in the case.”
United States v. Bradford Lee Butler, 297 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 8× “Butler *518 argues on appeal that the district court erred by failing to specify the amount of restitution, and, furthermore, that the district court did not have the authority to order restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), as codified at 18 U.S.C. §§…”
United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 9× “1248 , 1253 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3663 ). A product of the victims’ rights movement that had picked up steam in the 1970s, that Act provides federal courts with discretionary authority to order restitution to victims of most federal crimes.”
United States v. Newell, 658 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011).
· cites it 5× “In addition, under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , the court imposed a restitution order of $1,741,876.”
United States v. Dorcely, Daniel, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Although the district court incorrectly ordered restitution under section 3663A, we note that the order would also be improper under the permissive restitution provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . 8 This provision permits (but does not require) the district court to order “the…”
United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “00 to INSCOM was erroneous because (1) no actual loss to the government could be calculated in this case; (2) the court failed to take into account the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (b), and failed to “key its findings” to these factors; and (3) the court imposed a…”
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “We pause to point out here that 18 U.S.C. § 3663 is the Victim & Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”), not the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), and the substance of McNair’s argument comes from the VWPA.”
United States v. Jose Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 9× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1). To determine the amount of restitution, if any, the sentencing court “shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the…”
United States v. Robert U. Syme, 276 F.3d 131 (3rd Cir. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Did the Restitution Order Violate Apprendi? The District Court ordered Syme to pay $100,000 in restitution to the HCFA (a $300,000 restitution order less a $200,000 credit) pursuant to the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . Syme contends that the…”
United States v. Anderson, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007).
· cites it 19× “In that brief, the government argued that the Court nevertheless could order restitution based on a provision of the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(3), that provides that a court may order restitution “in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the…”
United States v. George W. Jewett, Jr., 978 F.2d 248 (6th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 11× “18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1) (1988). Jewett argues that the amount of restitution ordered was impermissible under the terms of the VWPA and in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act in Hughey v.”
United States v. Jack A. Day, 418 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Day pleaded guilty is found at 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , which originally was enacted through the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act (“VWPA”).”
United States v. Michael Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3rd Cir. 2022).
· cites it 8× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1) (1994). Such restitution orders, in turn, could be enforced by the United States “in the manner provided for the collection and payment of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title.”
United States v. Maggie Powell, 354 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “06 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , also known as the Victim and Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”).”
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Diaz argued instead that his crime was covered by the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , and thus the district court retained discretion in deciding whether to impose restitution and the amount of restitution it would require Diaz to pay.”
Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “He also agreed to pay “mandatory restitution” to Doe “under the Victim-Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 , 3663A and 3664” in the amount of $200,000.”
United States v. Steven Ira Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “of the plea agreement, respectively, Cohen agreed, without qualification, “[t]o plead guilty to counts sixteen and seventeen of the [First Indictment], filed January 14, 2004; and count one of the [Second] In *493 dictment filed April 15, 2004,” and “[t]o make restitution to any…”
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 4× “The plea agreement identified the following as possible bases for restitution: (1) the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.”
United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 5× “The government properly acknowledges that restitution is not permitted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 or 18 U.S.C. § 3663A for offenses that fall within Title 26 of United States Code.”
United States v. James Frith, Jr., 461 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “The discretionary restitution provision, § 3663, was enacted in 1982 through the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act (“VWPA”).”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “We note that thus far all of our Sister Circuits that have considered similar challenges to restitution orders entered under the MVRA — or under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1)(A), pursuant to which the sentencing court “may” order…”
United States v. Benjamin Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 7× “Smith should receive credit against the restitution amount for the value of the collateral property as of the date title to the property was transferred to either Savings & Loan or Gibraltar.”
United States v. Jervis Davis, 714 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “In doing so, he entered into a written plea agreement by which he agreed “[t]o make restitution to any victim in whatever amount the Court may order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A.” The United States Probation Office conducted a presentence investigation and prepared a…”
United States v. James L. Diamond, 969 F.2d 961 (10th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Diamond claims, inter alia, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 by directing him to pay restitution for losses caused by conduct other than the specific offense for which he stood convicted.”
United States v. Monroe Melvin Husky, Jr., 924 F.2d 223 (11th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 9× “1985), the Ninth Circuit held that the list of compensable injuries in 18 U.S. C.A. § 3663(b)(2) is exclusive: Unlike an award of damages in a civil action, a restitution order under the Act may compensate only for the kind of harms enumerated in [ 18 U.”
United States v. Amos Searan & Jeanettia Searan, 259 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “For the proposition that courts must consider the financial resources of the defendant in determining whether to order restitution, she cites “18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(B)(I),” by which she apparently means 18 U.”
In Re Amigoni, 109 B.R. 341 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989).
· cites it 5×
United States v. Lazarenko, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 4× “§ 3663A and 18 U.S.C § 3663(a), the Court GRANTS Kiritchen-ko’s request for restitution in the amount of $19,473,309.”
United States v. Vigil, 998 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D.N.M. 2014).
· cites it 2× “)(noting that “the Court has discretion to impose restitution for harm to the community for drug-trafficking,” in light of “18 U.S.C. § 3663(c)(1) [ Mating that ‘when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in .”
United States v. McBride, 39 F. App'x 139 (6th Cir. 2002).
“McBride nevertheless argues that by citing to “18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)” and “U.S.S.G. § 5El.”
Jewell Allen, 568 F. App'x 314 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 3×
United States v. Mayorga (4th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Although a defendant can agree to restitution beyond the limits of § 3663(a)(1) and (2), see 18 U.S.C.§ 3663(a)(3), here the language of the plea agreement is at best ambiguous concerning whether the parties intended that restitution could be awarded to victims of offenses other…”
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Hird, 2015 OK 70 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Hird's sentence was modified, upon motion of the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3663(d), because of Hird's substantial assistance in the case.”
Matter of Mikhlov v. Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 4046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
“Petitioner argued, inter alia, that he is a proper party for bringing the proceeding as a victim named in the Restitution Judgment under either the old version of 18 USCA § 3663(h)(2) or the amended version, the MVRA.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a) — 2 cases
United States v. McBride, 39 F. App'x 139 (6th Cir. 2002).
“McBride nevertheless argues that by citing to “18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)” and “U.S.S.G. § 5El.”
United States v. Lazarenko, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
“§ 3663A and 18 U.S.C § 3663(a), the Court GRANTS Kiritchen-ko’s request for restitution in the amount of $19,473,309.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(A) — 3 cases
United States v. Joshua Sizemore, 850 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2017).
“The probation office assessed restitution, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 , in the amount of $230,839.”
United States v. Lazarenko, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
“§ 3663A and 18 U.S.C § 3663(a), the Court GRANTS Kiritchen-ko’s request for restitution in the amount of $19,473,309.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Mayorga (4th Cir. 1999).
“Although a defendant can agree to restitution beyond the limits of § 3663(a)(1) and (2), see 18 U.S.C.§ 3663(a)(3), here the language of the plea agreement is at best ambiguous concerning whether the parties intended that restitution could be awarded to victims of offenses other…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(B)(I) — 1 case
United States v. Amos Searan & Jeanettia Searan, 259 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2001).
“For the proposition that courts must consider the financial resources of the defendant in determining whether to order restitution, she cites “18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(B)(I),” by which she apparently means 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Monroe Melvin Husky, Jr., 924 F.2d 223 (11th Cir. 1991).
“1985), the Ninth Circuit held that the list of compensable injuries in 18 U.S. C.A. § 3663(b)(2) is exclusive: Unlike an award of damages in a civil action, a restitution order under the Act may compensate only for the kind of harms enumerated in [ 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(c)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Vigil, 998 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D.N.M. 2014).
“)(noting that “the Court has discretion to impose restitution for harm to the community for drug-trafficking,” in light of “18 U.S.C. § 3663(c)(1) [ Mating that ‘when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in .”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(d) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Hird, 2015 OK 70 (Okla. 2015).
“Hird's sentence was modified, upon motion of the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3663(d), because of Hird's substantial assistance in the case.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663(h)(2) — 1 case
Matter of Mikhlov v. Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 4046 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).
“Petitioner argued, inter alia, that he is a proper party for bringing the proceeding as a victim named in the Restitution Judgment under either the old version of 18 USCA § 3663(h)(2) or the amended version, the MVRA.”
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.