U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 232— MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCING PROVISIONS

18 U.S.C. § 3663A

Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. 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, may assume the victim’s rights under this section, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.(3) The court shall also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other than the victim of the offense.(4)Clarification.—In ordering restitution under this section, a court shall order the defendant to make restitution to a person who has assumed the victim’s rights under paragraph (2) to reimburse that person’s necessary and reasonable—(A) lost income, child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during and directly related to participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense;(B) lost income, transportation, and other expenses incurred that are directly related to transporting the victim for necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment; and(C) lost income, transportation, and other expenses incurred that are directly related to transporting the victim to receive necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation.(b) The order of restitution shall require that such defendant—(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense—(A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or(B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to—(i) the greater of—(I) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or(II) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less(ii) the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned;(2) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim—(A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment;(B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and(C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense;(3) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury that results in the death of the victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services; and(4) in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.(c)(1) This section shall apply in all sentencing proceedings for convictions of, or plea agreements relating to charges for, any offense—(A) that is—(i) a crime of violence, as defined in section 16;(ii) an offense against property under this title, or under section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)), including any offense committed by fraud or deceit;(iii) an offense described in section 3 of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019;(iv) an offense described in section 1365 (relating to tampering with consumer products); or(v) an offense under section 670 (relating to theft of medical products); and(B) in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.(2) In the case of a plea agreement that does not result in a conviction for an offense described in paragraph (1), this section shall apply only if the plea specifically states that an offense listed under such paragraph gave rise to the plea agreement.(3) This section shall not apply in the case of an offense described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii) or (iii) if the court finds, from facts on the record, that—(A) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable; or(B) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim’s losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.(d) An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664.(Added Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 204(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1227; amended Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, § 3613(d), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1230; Pub. L. 112–186, § 6, Oct. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 1430; Pub. L. 116–206, § 5, Dec. 4, 2020, 134 Stat. 1000; Pub. L. 118–77, § 2, July 30, 2024, 138 Stat. 1510.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 3 of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019, referred to in subsec. (c)(1)(A)(iii), is classified to section 2402 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 118–77 added par. (4).

2020—Subsec. (c)(1)(A)(iii) to (v). Pub. L. 116–206, § 5(1), added cl. (iii) and redesignated former cls. (iii) and (iv) as (iv) and (v), respectively.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 116–206, § 5(2), inserted “or (iii)” after “paragraph (1)(A)(ii)” in introductory provisions.

2012—Subsec. (c)(1)(A)(iv). Pub. L. 112–186 added cl. (iv).

2000—Subsec. (c)(1)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 106–310 inserted “or under section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)),” after “under this title,”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section to be effective, to extent constitutionally permissible, for sentencing proceedings in cases in which defendant is convicted on or after Apr. 24, 1996, see section 211 of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 2248 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,977 cases (301 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 20× “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 15× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. It called for restitution divided between the five defendants to each victim in the full amount of each victim's loss, which included $206,775,813 to the FDIC and $1,360,239 to Cerberus.”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 11× “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)–(c). No party disputes that the United States can constitute a “victim” under the MVRA.”
United States v. Kamadeen Idowu Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 12× “The plea agreement noted that restitution was “mandated” by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. It included an appeal-waiver provision covering both cases, which stated: The defendant will not file an appeal or otherwise challenge the conviction or sentence in 00-709 or 01-957 in the event that…”
United States v. Francis Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 10× “1214, 1227 (codified principally at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664), orders him to pay $18,629,716 in restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the guarantor on various defaulted loans obtained pursuant to the charged criminal scheme.”
United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 12× “I Restitution Defendants primarily challenge the $3,088,466 of EDS’s attorney fees and accounting costs included in the restitution order.”
United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “§ 16 , he must pay restitution to any person "directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of [the] offense.”
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 11× “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). · cites it 20× “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Robert S. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “1214, codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664 (1996). Gordon does not dispute the entire amount of the restitution order but contends that certain portions should not be included.”
United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 9× “After a hearing on the issue of restitution, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the district court ordered Elson to pay $2,492,424.”
Show all 1,977 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(1)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Queen Anieze-Smith, 923 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2019).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Dnyanoba Kendre, 486 F. App'x 271 (3rd Cir. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(2) — 10 cases
United States v. Shaun Joseph Ruff, 420 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2005).
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant, 169 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Corey, 77 F. App'x 7 (1st Cir. 2003).
In Re Tyrell a., 112 A.3d 468 (Md. 2015).
United States v. Holthaus, 437 F. Supp. 2d 932 (N.D. Iowa 2006).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(3) — 3 cases
United States v. Douglas Healy, 553 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Joseph Nocito, 64 F.4th 76 (3rd Cir. 2023).
Hsu v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 2d 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(B) — 1 case
Vrf Eye Speciality Grp., Plc v. Yoser, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (W.D. Tenn. 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(C)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Johnson, 94 F.4th 434 (5th Cir. 2024).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(C)(2) — 1 case
Thrasher v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 480 (E.D. Va. 2010).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a) — 59 cases
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)–(c). No party disputes that the United States can constitute a “victim” under the MVRA.”
United States v. Gary R. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Steven Ira Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1) — 322 cases
United States v. Gerald Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603 (4th Cir. 2021).
United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Mark Cowden, 882 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr., 926 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Barbara J. Wallace (11th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Gary Allen Reichow (8th Cir. 2005).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) — 398 cases
United States v. John T. Burns, III, 843 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Nivis Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. It called for restitution divided between the five defendants to each victim in the full amount of each victim's loss, which included $206,775,813 to the FDIC and $1,360,239 to Cerberus.”
United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Neil A. Thomsen, 830 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2)(C) — 1 case
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3) — 54 cases
United States v. William H. Randle, 324 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Donald Davenport, 445 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013).
United States v. Yijun Zhou, 838 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3)(b) — 1 case
United States v. Fiorentino, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3)(b)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Onyiego, 286 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2002).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(4) — 2 cases
United States v. Irene Michelle Fike, 140 F.4th 351 (6th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Philmon Chambers (11th Cir. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Rains (2d Cir. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(Z) — 1 case
United States v. Johnson, 145 F. Supp. 3d 862 (D.S.D. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l) — 283 cases
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Speakman, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013).
United States v. Gary Kovall, 857 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Anthony P. Perry v. Tryllous Hossler, Intervenor-Appellant, 360 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Bold, 412 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Bold, 412 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Gary Allen Reichow, 416 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Goddard, 735 F. Supp. 2d 820 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b) — 44 cases
United States v. Robert S. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004). “1214, codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664 (1996). Gordon does not dispute the entire amount of the restitution order but contends that certain portions should not be included.”
United States v. Lawrence Foster, 878 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Victor Hackett, 311 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2002).
United States v. George R. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Maynard & Ludwig, 743 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2014).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1) — 36 cases
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)–(c). No party disputes that the United States can constitute a “victim” under the MVRA.”
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Mark Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Glenda Taylor-Sanders, 88 F.4th 516 (4th Cir. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(A) — 9 cases
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Kashawn Morrow, 5 F.4th 808 (7th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Douglas Healy, 553 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Carstie Clausen, 949 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Morgan (D.D.C. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B) — 45 cases
United States v. Jarred Alexander Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Heon Seok Lee, 937 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2019).
United States v. John J. Leahy, William E. Stratton, James M. Duff, & Terrence Dolan, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878 (11th Cir. 2009).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(i) — 6 cases
United States v. Timothy Beston, Jr., 43 F.4th 867 (8th Cir. 2022).
United States v. James Miller, Jr., 41 F.4th 1019 (8th Cir. 2022).
United States v. John Farano, 749 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Hemingway (10th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Michael Barranco-Millares, 462 F. App'x 892 (11th Cir. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(ii) — 11 cases
United States v. Francis Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). “1214, 1227 (codified principally at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664), orders him to pay $18,629,716 in restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the guarantor on various defaulted loans obtained pursuant to the charged criminal scheme.”
United States v. Douglas Healy, 553 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Elizabeth Holmes, 129 F.4th 636 (9th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Kimberley Boyce (5th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Stephen Angerman (7th Cir. 2018).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2) — 19 cases
United States v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg, United States of Am. v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg, 400 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
United States v. Richard Ashton Oslund, 453 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Gossi, 608 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Timmy Cliatt, 338 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2)(A) — 17 cases
United States v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg, United States of Am. v. Gregory Johnson, A/K/A Little Greg, 400 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2005).
United States v. David Wilcox, 487 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Wilfong, 551 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Barton, 366 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2)(C) — 14 cases
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015).
United States v. Theodore Anthony Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
People v. Runyan, 279 P.3d 1143 (Cal. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(2)(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Bedonie, 413 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2005).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(3) — 14 cases
United States v. Douglas, 525 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2008).
United States v. O'Neil Frank Iron Cloud, 312 F.3d 379 (8th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
People v. Runyan, 279 P.3d 1143 (Cal. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) — 72 cases
United States v. George Koutsostamatis, 956 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2020).
United States v. John Afriyie, 27 F.4th 161 (2d Cir. 2022).
United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008). “I Restitution Defendants primarily challenge the $3,088,466 of EDS’s attorney fees and accounting costs included in the restitution order.”
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018).
United States v. Battista, 575 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2009).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l) — 27 cases
United States v. Benjamin Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)–(c). No party disputes that the United States can constitute a “victim” under the MVRA.”
United States v. Elbea Malone, 747 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Ferdman, 779 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Jacob De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2003).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(A) — 10 cases
United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Elbea Malone, 747 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2014).
United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Skowron, 839 F. Supp. 2d 740 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(A)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Elbea Malone, 747 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2014).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(B) — 43 cases
United States v. Francis Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). “1214, 1227 (codified principally at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664), orders him to pay $18,629,716 in restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the guarantor on various defaulted loans obtained pursuant to the charged criminal scheme.”
United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008).
United States v. Jesse Kaplan, 839 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Maggie Powell, 354 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2003).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(B)(I) — 1 case
United States v. Ehab Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2002).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(B)(i) — 24 cases
United States v. Francis Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). “1214, 1227 (codified principally at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664), orders him to pay $18,629,716 in restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the guarantor on various defaulted loans obtained pursuant to the charged criminal scheme.”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
United States v. David H. Swanson, 394 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Wilfong, 551 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l)(B)(ii) — 11 cases
United States v. Francis Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). “1214, 1227 (codified principally at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664), orders him to pay $18,629,716 in restitution to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the guarantor on various defaulted loans obtained pursuant to the charged criminal scheme.”
United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Benjamin Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Douglas Healy, 553 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Scott Fonseca, 790 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c) — 44 cases
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Ben Bane, 720 F.3d 818 (11th Cir. 2013).
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010).
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1) — 47 cases
United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr., 926 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
United States v. Benally, 19 F.4th 1250 (10th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Rainford, 110 F.4th 455 (2d Cir. 2024).
United States v. Steven Ira Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A) — 14 cases
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018).
United States v. Lonnie Lillard, 935 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Anthony, 942 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Anderson, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007).
United States v. Golino, 956 F. Supp. 359 (E.D.N.Y 1997).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(i) — 28 cases
United States v. Joseph Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019).
Irma Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2018).
United States v. Mark Cowden, 882 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Randly Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2022).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) — 126 cases
United States v. Razzouk, 984 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2020).
United States v. Henry Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2016).
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005).
United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Scott Allen McDaniel (03-1940) & Gregory Warren Wade (03-2073), 398 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(B) — 26 cases
United States v. Jarred Alexander Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Derek Benedict, 815 F.3d 377 (8th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Derek Benedict, 855 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Goodrich, 12 F.4th 219 (2d Cir. 2021).
United States v. John Doe, 374 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(a) — 1 case
Kiwanuka v. Bakilana (D.D.C. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Williams, 48 F. App'x 44 (4th Cir. 2002).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(2) — 4 cases
United States v. Benally, 19 F.4th 1250 (10th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Marino, 654 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Johnson, 94 F.4th 434 (5th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Harwood, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (D.N.M. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3) — 35 cases
United States v. Robert Catoggio, Roy Ageloff, 326 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
Fed. Ins. Co. v. United States, United States v. Mazer, 882 F.3d 348 (2d Cir. 2018).
United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008). “I Restitution Defendants primarily challenge the $3,088,466 of EDS’s attorney fees and accounting costs included in the restitution order.”
United States v. Cheal, 389 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(A) — 11 cases
United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016).
United States v. Barton, 366 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Agate, 613 F. Supp. 2d 315 (E.D.N.Y 2009).
Masoud v. Holder, 487 F. App'x 633 (2d Cir. 2012).
United States v. Bold, 412 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(B) — 66 cases
United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. It called for restitution divided between the five defendants to each victim in the full amount of each victim's loss, which included $206,775,813 to the FDIC and $1,360,239 to Cerberus.”
United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013).
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
United States v. James, 592 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Robert S. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004). “1214, codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664 (1996). Gordon does not dispute the entire amount of the restitution order but contends that certain portions should not be included.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(A)(i) — 1 case
United States v. Thornbrugh (10th Cir. 2019).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(A)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Sprouse, 58 F. App'x 985 (4th Cir. 2003).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l) — 41 cases
United States v. Dorcely, Daniel, 454 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). “§ 3663 ; (2) the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A; or, (3) as a condition of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Jacob De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2003).
United States v. William H. Randle, 324 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(A) — 12 cases
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). “Serawop to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered him, under the Mandatory Victims’ Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (“MVRA”), to pay $325,751 in restitution to the Estate of Beyoncé Sera-wop.”
United States v. Jesse James Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004). “In a written order, the court explained: “The court is legally obligated to impose [this] assessment [for lost *1290 income] by 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.”
United States v. Atl. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 612 F. Supp. 2d 453 (D.N.J. 2009).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(A)(Z) — 1 case
United States v. Tabaja, 273 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(A)(i) — 5 cases
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2004).
United States v. Larry James Reynolds, 432 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Damien McDougal, 368 F. App'x 648 (6th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Bowen, 225 F. App'x 765 (10th Cir. 2007).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(A)(ii) — 75 cases
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). “BACKGROUND The prosecutions at issue on these appeals arose out of a lengthy securities-fraud investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), culminating in the June 2000 arrests of approximately 120 persons, including Laken, Black, and Reifler, and the filing of…”
United States v. Henry Lo, 839 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2016).
Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005).
United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Robert S. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004). “1214, codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664 (1996). Gordon does not dispute the entire amount of the restitution order but contends that certain portions should not be included.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(A)(iii) — 1 case
United States v. Brennan, 526 F. Supp. 2d 378 (E.D.N.Y 2007).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(B) — 18 cases
United States v. Robert Catoggio, Roy Ageloff, 326 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Jacob De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Douglas, 525 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2008).
United States v. Finazzo, 850 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2017).
United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2007).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(a) — 2 cases
Kiwanuka v. Bakilana, 844 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
United States v. Richard Meade, 677 F. App'x 959 (6th Cir. 2017).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(a)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Angel Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(i) — 1 case
United States v. Harwood, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (D.N.M. 2012).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(l)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Ernest J. Szarwark, 168 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 1999).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(cX3)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Pruitt, 813 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(d) — 56 cases
United States v. Donald Davenport, 445 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Raymond P. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Jeffrey Wallace Edwards, 728 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2010).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e) — 3 cases
United States v. Anthony Roberts, 778 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Cockerell, 140 F.4th 213 (5th Cir. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(1)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
United States v. John J. Leahy, William E. Stratton, James M. Duff, & Terrence Dolan, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Neil A. Thomsen, 830 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(3) — 4 cases
United States v. Gregory Fair, 699 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
United States v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Bold, 412 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
Morning Star Packing Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 711 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(3)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Roosevelt Anderson, Jr., 741 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(l) — 3 cases
United States v. James Frith, Jr., 461 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Brennan, 526 F. Supp. 2d 378 (E.D.N.Y 2007).
United States v. Tariq Hamad, 300 F. App'x 401 (6th Cir. 2008).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case
United States v. Johnson, 183 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 1999).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(l)(A)(ii) — 11 cases
United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008). “I Restitution Defendants primarily challenge the $3,088,466 of EDS’s attorney fees and accounting costs included in the restitution order.”
United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2009). “After a hearing on the issue of restitution, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the district court ordered Elson to pay $2,492,424.”
United States v. Randy Lee Vanhorn, 296 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Charles Emor, 785 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
United States v. David Nosal, 828 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(e)(l)(B) — 4 cases
United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Windle, 419 F. App'x 50 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Farrell, 115 F. Supp. 3d 746 (S.D.W. Va 2015).
United States v. Ganz, 90 F. Supp. 3d 388 (E.D. Pa. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(f)(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Jeffrey Bowen (9th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Jeffrey Wallace Edwards (11th Cir. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(f)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Jeffrey Wallace Edwards, 728 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2013).
United States v. Jeffrey Wallace Edwards (11th Cir. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(f)(l)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Keith Newman, 148 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Jeffrey Wallace Edwards, 728 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2013).
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.