## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3794 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B ENJ AMI N R O BERS, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 10 C R 95

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judg e.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 15, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2012

Befo re F LA UM, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. M A N I ON, C ircu it Judge. Benj am i n Rober s pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to com m i t wir e fra ud i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U. S
. C. § 3 71 , b as ed on his r o l e as a s tr aw b uy eri n a m o r tg ag e f r au d s ch eme; Ro be r s si g ne d m o r tg ag e do cum en ts s ee k i ngl o an s whi chwer e ba sed on f al se a nd i nfl ate d i ncom e a nd as sets an d bas ed on hi s cl ai m that he would r esi de i n the houses as hi s pri m ar y res idence an d pa y the m o r tg ag es . The l o an s wenti nt o de f au l t an d th e r ea l e state w hi chs er ve d a s co l l at er alf o r the l o an s we r e l a t e r f o r e c l o s e d u po n a nd r e s o l d.2 N o. 10

- 3794

F or sim p licity’s sak e, w e refe r t o the v alu e of “th e p ro p erty 1 thati s returned ” as the “off se t val ue. ” Forhi s r ol e in the schem e, the dist ric t co urt sente nced Rober s t o thre e y ear s’ pro bati on a nd o rder ed hi m to pay $ 2 1 8 , 9 5 2 i n r e s t i t u t i o n t o th e v i c t i ms

— a m or tga ge l ender o fo ne pr o per tya nd the mor tg ag e i ns ur an ce c o m pan y w hi ch had pai d a cl ai m o n the othe r defa ult ed m or tg age. Cl ea r l y, b o thmor tg ag e h o l der s ex per i en ce d s i g ni fi ca nt l oss es. Robe rs appeal s, ch all engi ng o nl y the r est i tuti on ord er. Th e Man da t o r y V i c t i ms Re s t i tut i o n Acto f1 9 9 6 , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 36 63 A “( M VRA”) , g o ve r ns federal cr i m i na l r es ti tu ti o n. I t pr ovi des, i n the case o fa c rim e “resul ti ng i n dam age t o o r l o s s o r de s t r uc t i o n o f pr o pe r t y o f a v i c t i m , ” t hat re sti tuti on i s m andator y a nd thata cour t s hal l o rder a defendant to : ( A ) ret u rn the proper ty to the o w ner ofthe proper ty or som eon e d esigna ted by the ow ne r; or ( B) i fr e t u r n o fth e p r o p e r t y u n d e r s u b p a r a g r a p h ( A) i s i mpo s s ib l e , i mpr a c t i c a l, o r i na de qu a t e , pa y an am ount e qual to the g re ate r of

— ( i ) the v al ue o fthe pr o per tyo n the da te o fthe d am age, l oss, orde stru ction, or ( i i ) the v al ue o fthe pr o per tyo n the d ate o fs en te n c in g, l e s s the v a l ue ( a s o fthe da t e the p r o pe r t y i s r e t urne d) o fa nyp a r to fthe p r o pe r t y tha ti s r e t urne d. 1 18 U
. S. C
. § 3663A (b)( 1).N o. 10

- 3794 3 The di spu te i n thi s ca se c o nc erns the c al cul at i o n o fthe “o ff s e tv a l ue . ” R o b e r s a r g ue s tha tthe MVRA r e qui re s th e c ou rtto d et e r m in e t h e o ffse t v alu e b as ed on th e fa ir m ar k etv alue the r ea l e st at e co l l at er al h ad on th e dat e th e vi ct i m l en d ers o bt aine d t i tl e to the ho us es f o l l o wi ng for ec los u re be c au se th at is th e “ d a te th e p ro p er ty is r eturne d. ” The g o ve r nm en t co unt er s th atmone y was the pr o per tys to l eni n the mor tg ag e f raud s ch eme a nd that f or ecl osur e of th e co l l ate ra l r eales tat e i s no t a re tu rn o ft h e p ro p er ty st ole n ; rat h er , on ly w h en th e c oll ate ra l r eale st ate i s r eso l d do the v i cti m s r ecei ve m oney( proce eds fro m the sal e) wh i ch w as the type o f proper ty sto l en. A ccor dingl y, the gov er nm en t argues th at th e o ff se t va l ue mustb e det er m i ne d b as ed o n the eve ntual cas h proc eeds r ecou p ed fol l owing the s al e o f the c ol l ate ra l r eales tat e. T h is c ou rtin t w o n on -p re c ed en tia l d ec isio n s h as follow ed th e g ov er n m en t’s ap p ro ac h

. See i nfra a t 16

- 18
. The othe r ci rcui ts ar e s pli t o n the i ssue. The S eco nd , Fi fth an d Ni nth Ci r cui ts ha ve he l d tha t in a m o r tg ag e f r au d c a s e , the o ff s e tv a l ue s ho ul d b e b a s e d o n the f a i r mark et v a l u e o fth e r e a l e s t a t e c o l l a t e r a l a tth e t i m e th e v i c t i ms ob ta in tit le t o t h e h ou se s. See infra a t 18

- 19
. Co nv er se l y, the Thir d, Eighth, and Tent h Ci rcui ts ( and a di sse nt fro m the Ninth Ci rcui t) have co ncl ud ed that i t is p roper to deter m i ne t h e off setval ue bas ed on the ev entual amoun t r ec o upe d b y t he v i ct i m f o l l o wi ngs al e o fthe c olla te ra l rea l es ta te
. See infra at19
. Today we j oi n the vie w o f the Thir d, Eighth, and Tenth Cir cui ts

— that the off setval ue i s the ev entualcas h pro-4 N o. 10

- 3794 ceeds re couped fo l l owin g a f or ecl osur e s al e. W e r each th i s d e c i s i o n b a s e d o n th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f th e M VR A. The M VRA st at es thatthe off setval ue i s “ the v al ue ( as of the da t e the pr o pe r t y i s r e t urne d) o f a ny part of th e prop erty th at is r etu rned

. ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3663A (b)( 1). “The pro perty ” f orpurposes o foffs et val ue m ust m ean “th e pr oper ty sto l en. ” The pro pertyo ri gi nal l y s tol en w as cash. S om e a m ount o fc as h is the onl y way par t o f th e pr o per tyc anb e r etur ne d. I n the m ortga g e f r au d case we have b ef or e us, the proper ty s to len i s ca sh

— not the r eales tat e which s er ves as col l ateral

. A ccor dingl y, the pr oper ty sto l en is onlyr etur ned up on the r esa l e o f th e co l l at er alr ea l es tate an d i t i s attha t po i nttha t th e o ff se t va l ue s ho ul d b e det er m i ne d b y t he pa r t o fthe cash r eco up ed at the for ecl osur e s al e. We a l s o a g r e e wi t h t h e g o v e r n me n tth a tth e v i c t i ms ar e en ti tl ed to e xpe ns es ( o th ertha n a tt o r ne y ’ s fee s an d u n sp ec ified fee s) re lat ed to th e fo re c lo s u re an d sa le of the coll ateral pro p erty bec au se th ose ex p en ses w ere caused byRobe rs ’ s fra ud and re d uced the a m ount o f the proper ty ( cash) r etur ned to the v i cti m l enders. Bec au se the di st r i ctc o ur t i nc l ude d a ttorne y ’ s fee s an d uns pe c i fi e d fe e s i n the r e s t i t ut i o n a wa r d, we v a c a te that port i on o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a w ar d , but otherwis e affir m , an d rem an d for p ro c ee d in gs co n si s t e n t w ith th is o pi ni o n.

I . B a c kg r o und Benj am i n Rob er s was a str aw buye r i n a m or tga ge f ra ud sche m e devi sed byJ am es Lytl e a nd car ri ed out byN o. 10

- 3794 5 Lytl e a nd o ther s. The sc hem e invol ve d the s ubm i ssio n of fra u d u len t loa n ap p lica tio n s w h ich m at e ria lly m i sr epres ented the str aw buye rs ’ i ncom e, qual i fi cati ons, and i ntent to l i ve i n the houses and re pay the m or tga ges . The m i sr epres entat ion s caused l oan fund s t o be wir ed byl en d ers to s et tl ementc o m pan i es whi chc l o se d the l oans. The l oans w ent into defa ultand the b an ks l ate r f or ecl ose d on and then s ol d the house s which s er ved as col l ate ra l f orthe l oans. T h e s c h em e in vo lve d m or e t h an fifte en h ou se s in a sm all geograp hical area in W alw orth Cou nt y, W iscons in. R obers ser ved as a str aw purchase r f oro nl y tw o houses

— one on Grant S tr eeti n Lake Geneva an d the other on Inl et Shores i n De l av an . I n the l o ana ppl i ca ti o ns , whi chhe si g ne d, Ro be r s f al se l y st at ed th at he woul d us e the houses as hi s pri m ar y r esi dence and that he would pay th e not es se cur ed bythe mor tg ag es o n the ho us es ; he al so pr o vi ded f al se an d i nfl at ed i nf o r m at i o n c o nc erni ng h is in c om e a nd as set s. Fo r hi s r ol e in the schem e, Rober s r ecei ved a m er e pi tta n ce

— about $500 f orea ch l oan. Both l oans w ent unpai d and t h e ho uses ev en tu al l y wenti nt o f o r ec l o sure. Aft erthe g o ve r nm en t l ea r ne d o fthe frau d , Ro be r s wai ve d i ndi ct m en t an d ple aded guil ty to an i nfo rm ati on charg i ng hi m w i th o ne c o un to fc o ns pi r a c y t o c o mm i twi r e fr a ud

. A fterRobe rs pl eaded gui l ty, the U ni ted S tat es Pro bati on Of f i ce pr epare d a Pre sente nce I nv e s ti gat i on R ep ort (“PSR ”). Ofr e lev an ce to th is app eal, the P SR re com m ended that Robe rs s houl d be r equi re d to pay $218 , 952.18 in restitution, pu rsu an t to the M an d a t o ry6 N o. 10

- 3794 Vict i m s Res ti tuti on Act of199 6, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 663A “( M VRA ”)
. Robe rs o bj ecte d to the $ 218, 952. 18 fi gu re , ar gu in g t h at h is m in or role in t h e o ffen se an d h is l i m i ted ec onom i c ci rcum sta nces shoul d res ulti n a t ota l re sti tution obl i gat i on o f$4 , 800. Robe rs al so cl ai m ed th at th e p ro p os ed res tit u tio n aw ar d im p ro p er ly h eld him r esp onsibl e f orthe decl i ne i n re ales tat e v al ues and consequenti aland i nci dental expenses . A t s entenci ng, the gov er nm ent a rgued th at nei ther Rober s’ s l i m i te d r ol e in the offense norhi s l i m i ted r eso ur ce s j us ti fied a l o werr es ti tu ti o n a m o unt, j o i nt l y a nd seve ra l l y o w ed by al l o fthe parti ci pants i n the schem e. T h e g o v e r n me n tth e n p r e s e n t e d t e s t i mo n y fr o m t wo w itn es se s to e st ab lish th e a m ou n t o f res tit u tio n . First, Ji m Far m er, a re prese ntati ve ofM or tga ge Gu ar anty I nsurance Corpor ati on ( “M GIC”) , te sti fi ed that M GIC had in su re d th e G r a n t S tr ee t m or tg ag e (w h ich w as ow n ed by Fa n n ie M ae) and that Fanni e M ae h ad subm i tte d a cl ai m f or $159 , 214. 91 , which incl ud ed unp ai d pri nci pal, acc rued i nter est, at torney’ s fees , p ro p er ty taxes , and other rela te d e xpe ns es . F ar m ere xpl aine d tha t M GI C ha d the o pt i o n o f p a y i n g a p e r c e n t a g e o f th e c l a i m o r p a y i ng t he ful l a m o unto fthe l o ss and a cqui r i ngthe r ea l e st at e an d then l i quidati ng i t. M GIC cho se t o do the l att erand w as abl e t o re d u ce the am ount o fi ts l oss to $5 2, 952. 18, wh i ch w as low er t h an the am ount i t would have had to pay h ad it p aid a p er c en ta g e o fF an n ie M ae ’s c laim . In m itigat i ng i ts l oss , tho ugh, M GIC i ncurr ed ad d itio nal expenses, such a s haz ar d i ns urance, ya rd m ai ntenance, an d the r ea l to r ’ s co m m i ss i o n.N o. 10

- 3794 7

R estitutio n in the a m ou nt o f $1 66 ,000 w as or d ered to A m eri- 2 can Portf oli o, du e j oint ly and se verall y w ith J o se C o rtez V aladez, Case N o. 07- CR

- 158 and J ohn Boum enot, Case N o. 09- CR

- 19 4
. An d r e s t i t ut i ono f$ 5 2 , 9 5 2
. 1 8 wa s o r de r e d t o M GIC j oint ly and s everal ly with J am es Ly tl e, Case No
. 07- CR

- 113, B rad ley H ollister, C ase N o. 08-C R -229 , an d E ric M eine l, C a se N o . 09 -C R -2 1 7
. F BIS pec i alAge ntM i ch ael S he ena l so t es ti fi ed atthe s e n t e n c i ng h e a r i n g . A ft e r d e t a i l i n gh o w th e s c h e me oper ate d, he e x pla i ned that the Inl et Shor es house had a m or tg ag e n ot e o f $3 30 ,00 0 o w n ed b y A m er ica n P or tfo lio and tha t the f o r e c l o s e d r e a l e s t a t e e v e ntua l l y s o l d fo r $1 64 ,00 0 , r e su ltin g in a $1 66 ,00 0 los s. T h er e w er e a d d itio n al ex p en se s re lat ed to th e fo re c los u re sa le, bu t A m er ican Portfoli o had not resp ond ed to the govern m en t’s r eque stf o r a dd it i o na l i nf o r m at i o n. Acco r di ng l y, the am ount o fr est i tuti on r equeste d fo r the In let S hor es m or tga ge w as l i m i ted to $1 66, 000. The dis tr i ct c ou rt se ntenced Robe rs to thr ee yea rs ’ proba ti on

— a be l o w-Gui del i ne se nt en ce . Ba se d o n the testim ony at the sen ten cing h earing, the d istri ct c o urt or d er ed res tit u tio n of $ 16 6,0 00 to A m er ica n P or tfo lio an d $5 2, 95 2. 18 to M GI C, f o r a to ta l r es ti tu ti o n aw ard of $218,952.18. Rob ers’s co-cons p irators w ho w ere i nv o l ve d wi ththe pr o cur emento fthe Gr an t S tr ee t an d I nl etS ho r es mor tg ag es wer e al so o r der ed to pa y r es ti tu
t i o n i n the s a me a mou nt s a nd the r e s t i t ut i o n a wa r ds w ere allente re d w it h j oint an d several l iabil ity. Rob ers 2 a pp e a l s , c ha l l e ng i ngo nl y the r e s t i t ut i o n a wa r d.8 N o. 10

- 3794

R ob ers d oe s no t arg u e o n a p p eal th at h is m ino r ro le in 3 the offe n se an d his lim ited econ om ic circu m stan ces sho u ld red u ce the restitutio n a m ou nt. II . A n alysis On app eal, Robe rs ar gues that the di str i ct c ou rt er re d i n c al cul at i ng th e amoun t o fr es ti tu ti o n b as ed o n the even tu al r esale value of the fo reclosed real estat e. R obers m ai ntai ns thatthe dist ri ct c ou rt sho uld have bas ed th e r es ti tu ti o n a w ard ins te ad o n the f ai r mar k etv al ue ofthe re ales tat e a t the da te o f f or ecl osur e, and that byus ing the e ve ntua l r es al e pr o ce eds o fthe ho us es he w as w ro n gly h eld res p on sib le for th e d ec lin e in th eir va l ue . Ro be r s also arg ue s th atmany o fthe mis ce l l an eo us ex pen se s i nc l ude d i n th e l o ss ca l cul at i o n f o r th e G rant St re et house ar e co nsequenti alo r i n c identaldam age s that ar e no t pr op er ly consi dered i n a r est i tuti on aw ard. W hi l e g ener al l y we r evi ew a re sti tuti on o rder

3 defer en ti al l y, r evers i ngo nl y f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, bo tho fRo be r s’ s ar g um en ts pr es en t que st i o ns o fthe aw ar d’s l ega l i ty. A s s u c h, o ur r evi ew i s deno vo . U nited Sta tes v. Webber, 5 3 6 F
. 3 d 5 8 4 , 6 0 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 0 8 ) ( “ We re vi ew de nov o q u es ti ons ofl aw r ega rdi ng the federa l cour ts’ autho ri ty to or der r est i tuti on ; w e r evi ew f or ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n a di st r i ctco ur t’ s ca l cul at i o n o fr es ti tu
tio n, tak in g t h e e vid en c e in t h e l igh t m os t fa vo ra b le to t h e G ov er n m en t.” ) (int er n al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). See al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Ye ung, 672 F.3d 5 9 4 , 600 (9th C ir. 2012 ) (“W e review th e legali ty of a restitut ion or d e r, includ ing the d istri ct cou rt’s va luation m eth od , d e nov o. ”).N o. 10

- 3794 9

R o b er s a greed that the ulti m ate vict im ofthe Inl et Shores 4 f ra ud was Am er i c an Port fi ol i o a nd thatM GIC was the u lti m a te v ic tim o f th e G ra n t S tr ee t fra u d

. A. Off setVal ue 1. The st at utory l anguage The M VRA go ve r ns fede r alc r i m i na l r es ti tu ti o n a nd p ro vid es , in rele v a n t p ar t, th at a se n te n c in g c ou rt“s h all or der” defe nd ants convi cted o fcer tai n cr i m es to “m ake re st itu tio n ” t o t h eir vic tim s. 18 U .S.C . § 3 6 6 3 A (a)( 1). In 4 the c ase o fa cri m e “ re sul ti ng i n d am ag e to orl oss o r destr uction of proper ty ofa vi cti m , ” the st atute fu rt h er p ro vid es th at th e o rd er of re st itu tio n sh all re quir e the defendant to : ( A ) r etu rn t h e pr oper ty to the o w ner ofthe proper ty or som eon e d esigna ted by the ow ne r; or ( B ) i fre t u r n o fth e p r o p e r t y u n d e r s u b p a r a g r a p h ( A) i s i m possibl e, i m practic al, ori nadequ ate , pay an am ount e qual to the g re ate r of

— ( i ) the v al ue o fthe p ro per tyo n the da te o fthe d am age, l oss, orde stru ction, or ( i i ) the v al ue o fthe p ro per tyo n the da te o fs en te n c in g, l e s s the v a l ue ( a s o fthe da t e the pr o pe r t y i s r e t urne d) o fa nyp a r to fthe p r o pe r t y tha ti s r e t urne d. 18 U
. S. C
. § 3663A (b)( 1).10 N o. 10

- 3794

The Inle t Sh o re s h ouse was s old 31 m onths afterf orecl osure 5 bu t i t i s unclear from the rec ord w hen the G rant Str eetreal es ta te w a s so ld

. Ro be r s ar g ue s th atthe pl ain l an g uage of the M VRA re quir ed the dist ri ct c ourtto r educe the re stit u tio n aw ar d by the va lu e ofthe m or tga ged r eales tat e a s o f the date o ff or ecl osur e be cause thati s the va l ue “a s o f th e d at e t h e p ro p er ty is re tu rn ed .” H e c on te n d s t h at it was leg ale r r o r f o r the c o ur t to c al cul at e th e o ff se tt i ng am ount ba sed o n the eve ntual r esa l e pr i ces of th e r eal es ta te b ec au se the ho us es wer e r es o l d m an y months aft er th e fo re c los u re ac tio n s g a v e t itle to th e v ict im len d er s . A n d w ith th e b u rs t o f th e re al e st at e b u b b le in

5 th e m id -20 00 s, R ob er s m ain ta in s t h at th e h ou se s s old f orl ess , notba se d o n hi s fra ud , but f oro ther unr ela ted r eas ons. The go ver nm ent r esponds that Rober s’ s a rgum ent m isr eads the M VRA and ar gues that und erthe pla i n l anguage o f t h e M VRA , the re sti tuti on aw ar d i s o nl y r educed at the ti m e t h at the m or tga ged col l ate ra l i s s ol d because c ash i s the pro pertythatwas tak en and cas h i s o nl y r etur ned at that point i n ti m e. W e a gr ee w i th th e g ove rnm ent. M or e s peci fi cal l y, w e ho l d that in cal cul ati ng a re sti tuti on a w ar d wh er e, as i n thi s ca se , c as h i s th e pr o per tyt ak en, the r est i tu
t i o n a mou nti s r e du c e d b y the e v e ntua l c a s h pr o c e e ds r e c o up e d o nc e a nyc o l l a t e r a ls e c ur i ngthe de b ti s s o l d. W e r each thi s ho l ding b ase d on the pla i n l anguage o f th e M VRA. The M VRA s ta te s th at th e r es ti tu ti o n aw ard i s re d u c ed by “the va l ue ( as ofthe date t heprope r ty isN o. 10

- 3794 11 retu rned ) o f an y pa rt of t heprope r ty that i s r etur ned. ” 1 8 U .S.C
. § 36 63 A (b )(1) (B )(ii) (em p h as is ad d ed ). R e a d in th e co nt ex t o fth e s ta tu te , “ th e pr o per ty ” m us t m ea n the p ro p er ty orig in ally ta ke n from th e v ict im . Th e a p p lica b le subsect i on o fthe M VRA fi rs t a dd re sse s the si tuati on w e hav e here

— w here ther e i s “ dam age to o r l oss o r d es tr u c tio n of p ro p er ty of a v ict im of th e o ffen se .” Inth is ca se the “ l oss” th e vi ct i m s su ffer ed was a s i g ni fi ca nt a mou nto fc a s h. Ne xt, i tr e fe r s t o the r e t urn o f“ the p r o per ty to the o w ner. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 663A(b) ( 1)
. I n thi s ca se, si nc e th e pr o per tyt ak enfr o m the v i ct i m s was c as h, the two ho us es pur ch ased w i ththe c as h wer e no t th e p rop erty t aken from the lend ers, bu t rathe r w ere col l ate ra l th at s ecure d the ca sh l oans. The two cannotbe e q u a t e d

. C a s h i s l i q u i d

. R e a l e s t a t e i s n o t
. T h e v i c t i ml ender wa s de f r a ud e d o uto fc a s h a nd wa nt s c a s h b a c k; th e v i c t i m d oe s n otw an t t h e h ou se s a n d th ey d o n ot, in any way, bene fi t fro m poss ess i ng title t o the ho uses unti l theyar e c onverte d i nto cash upon r esa l e. U nd er the pl ain la n gu age o fthe sta tute, wh at m att er s i s when at l eas t par t o fthe cash was r etur ned to the v i ct i ms

— not w hen the vi cti m s r ecei ved tit l e t o the ho uses secu ring the l oans. A nd the cash was r etur ned to th e vi ct i m s o nl y whenthe c oll ater alho us es s ec ur i ng the l o a ns we r e e v e ntua l l y r e s o l d. Our i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe M VRA gi ve s th e phr as e “the proper ty” a consi ste nt m eani n g th ro ughout the st atute : I t al way s m ea ns “ th e pr o per tys to l en . ” Ro be r s’ s i nt erpr etati o n, o n the o th erha nd, s ee k s to g i ve the phr as e “the pr o per ty” a d i ffer en t m ea ni ngwi th i n the sam e s tatutor y s ecti on. U n der Ro ber s’ s inter preta ti on12 N o. 10

- 3794 the pr oper ty re turned w ou l d be the co l l ate ra l house s an d thei r est i m ate d val ue atthe ti m e the vi cti m r ecei ves ti tl e. H owever, “[ t] here i s a natur alpre sum pti on that i denti calwords used i n differ en t p ar ts ofthe sam e a ct ar e intended to have the s am e m ea n i ng. ” M a tter o f M ercha nts G rai n , In c. B y a nd Thro ug h M a hern , 93 F. 3d 13 47, 1 35 6 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( quo tingA tl a ntic C lea ners & D yers, Inc. v. U nited Sta tes , 2 86 U
. S
. 4 27, 4 33 ( 19 32 ) )
. The M VRA di r ec ts the c o ur t to o ff se t th e l o ss b y “ th e va l ue ( as ofthe date the pro perty is r etur ned) o fany part of the pr oper ty that i s re turned. ” U nd er Rober s’ s inter preta
ti o n “ a ny pa r t ” o f the pr o pe r t y r e t urne d wo ul d have to re ferto the col l ate ra l house

. Obvi ousl y par t o fa house can not be re t u r ne d

. N or can a hou se (or an y pa rt of a house) be the sam e as cash. I t i s o nl y when “the pr oper ty” m ea ns “ th e pr o per tys to l en ” ( ca sh ) tha t th e “a ny pa rt ” l anguage m ake s s en se, bec ause then i t i s pos sibl e t o re t urn o nl y a pa r t o f the pr o pe r t y . A ho us e i s no t part of th e ca sh

. Thu s, o urr ea di ngb o thg ives the phr as e “the pr o per ty ” a co ns i st en t m ea ni ngthr o ug ho ut the MVRA a nd do e s no t r e nd e r the “ a n y p a rt ” l an g ua g e o fthe st at u te su p er flu ou s o r n on se n sic al.

2. The M V R A ’ s st at utory g oal The M VRA ’ s o ver ri ding pu rpos e i s “ to com pensate vi cti m s fo r thei r l oss es. ” U nited Sta tes v. P esca to re, 63 7 F
. 3d 12 8, 1 38 ( 2d Ci r . 2 01 1) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. And [ b] ecause the M VRA m andates that re sti tuti on be o rder ed to c ri m e v i cti m s f orthe “fullam ount” ofN o. 10

- 3794 13 los se s c au se d by a d efe n d an t’s cr im in al c on d u c t, see18 U .S.C . § 36 64 (f)(1 )(A ); U nited Sta tes v. R eifler, 44 6 F
. 3d at1 34
. . . , i t can f ai r l y b e sa i d tha t th e “pr i m ar y a nd ove ra rchi ng” pu rpos e of the M VRA “i s to m ake vi cti m s o fcr i m e whol e, to fully c om p en sate these vi cti m s f orthei r l oss es and to re sto re thes e v i cti m s t o thei r or i gi nal st ate o fwell

-bei ng. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Bo c ca gna , 450 F. 3d 107, 11 5 ( 2d Cir

. 20 06) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m m onds , 23 5 F
. 3d 826, 8 31 ( 3d C ir. 2000). O u r h o l d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t wi th th e g o a l s o ft he MV R A, as wel l as th e co nc ept o f r es ti tu ti o n. The o ff se t am ou nt f orpurposes o fr est i tuti on i s the cas h re couped f ol l owing the di sposi ti on o f the col l ate ra l

. Other w i se the v i cti m s would notbe m ade wh ol e a ga i n beca use th e ev entualsa l es proce eds co uld be , as theywere in th i s ca se , woe ful l y i na dequa te t o full y c om pen sa te the vi ctim s for thei r l oss and to put them i n the posi ti on the y wo ul d h a v e b e e n a b s e ntthe fr a ud

. Rober s cl ai m s o ther w i se, as ser ti ng tha t o u r re ad i ng o f the M V R A m ake s hi m the i nsurero fr eales tat e v al ues an d im p ro p er ly h old s h im res p o n sib le for d ec lin es in the r eales tat e m ar ket

. Robe rs then posi ts that the v i cti m s’ l o ss es i n thi s ca se w ere ca us ed bythe c o l l aps e o fthe r ea l e st at e m ar k eta nd no t hi s f r au d. T he ref o r e ho l di ng hi m r esponsibl e f orthe furtherdecl i ne i n t h e rea l est ate val ues

— afte r the v i ct i m s ac qui r ed ti tl e to the houses

— v i o l a t e s th e u n d e r l y i n gp u r p o s e o fth e MV R A. N o t so . Co nt r ar y t o Ro bers’s a r g um en t, hi s f r au d ac tu al l y c au se d the l o ss es ati ss ue he r e. Abs en t hi s f r au du-14 N o. 10

- 3794 l ent l oan appli cati ons, the vi cti m l enders w ou ld not have l oaned the m oney i n the fi rs t pla ce. L ike w i se the mo r t g a g e n ote s wo ul d n o th a v e b e e n e xt e nd e d, no tp a i d, a nd the n de f a ul t e d u po n. And the b a nks w ou l d not hav e had to f or ecl ose o n and then res ell th e re al e st at e in a d ec l in in g m ar ke t a t a gre at ly re du ced val ue. The decl i ne i n the re al est ate m ar ket does not m itigate hi s fr a ud

. R o b e r s l i e d ab o uts e v e r a l thing s

— hi s intent to re sid e in the house as hi s pri m ar y r esi dence, hi s pro m i se to pay the m or tga ge, hi s i nfl ate d incom e, and hi s e x agg er at ed as se t val ue . Abs en t Ro be r s’ s f r au d, the de cl i ne i n the re ales tat e m ar ketwould h av e been i rr el evant : A ss u m in g h e a c tu ally qu a l i f ied for th e loa n s, h e w ou ld be l i vi ng i n the house and m aki ng the m or tga ge p aym en ts ou t o f th e in c om e h e c laim e d t o b e ea rn in g. If hi s as se ts ha d the v al ue he c l ai m ed , h e w o ul d no t want to r i skus i ngthe m t o s at i sfy a ny de fi ci en cyf o l l o wi ng a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e . T h e d e c l i n i n gma r k e to n l y b e c a me an i s s u e be c au se of R ob er s’s frau d

. Se eYe ung, 67 2 F
. 3d at 603 n. 5 ( “[ H ] er e Yeung c re ate d the ci rcum sta nces und erwh i ch the harm o r l oss o c c u rr ed thr ough heruse o ff a l s e i nfo r mat i o n tha ti nd uc e d the Lo ngBe a c h Tr us t to pu rchas e the l oan. Because the Long Be ac h Trust ’ s l oss i s di r ec tly r el at ed to Ye ung ’ s o ffen se , th e d eclin i ng val ue o f the r e a l e s t a t e c o l l a t e r a l, e v e n i f a t t r ib ut a b l e t o gener alfi nanci alco nd i ti ons, d oes notdi sr up t the causa l ch ain, a nd the v i ct i m s o fthe fr au d a r e en ti tl ed to r es ti tu
-N o. 10

- 3794 15

C o n t r a r y t o o u r h o ld in g , Yeun g he l d t hatthe off s etval ue 6 f o r p u r p o s e s o f r e s t i t u t i o n i s th e c o l l a t e r a l ’ s v a l u e a t t h e t i me tit le tr a n sfe rs to th e l o a n h o ld er . Seei nf ra a t 2 5 -2 8
. tion.”) (i nt erna l citation om itted ). Es sen tially Rob ers 6 w ants a b a i l o ut, l e a v i ng the v i c t i ms o f hi s f r a ud to su ffer th e c o n se q u en c es of h is d ec eit . Ro b er s, n oth is vic tim s, sh ou ld be ar th e ris k o fm a r ke t fo rc es be yo n d h is c o n t ro l. See U nited Sta tes v. R ho des, 3 3 0 F
. 3 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 03) ( “[ The defe nd ant] , r atherthan the v i cti m s, sh o ul d bea r the r i sko ff o r ce s be y o nd hi s co nt r o l

. ” ( quo ting d istri ct cou rt opinion ))
. I fth e r e a l e s t a t e v a l u e s i n c r e a s e d , th e r e b y a l l o wi ng th e cr edi to r t o r es el l the ho us es a t a hi gh er a m o unt th a n o we d , th e b a n kwo u l d n o tb e e n t i t l e d t o a r e s t i tu
ti on a w ar d. Si m i l arl y, i fthe i ncre ase d sal es pri ce m er el y r educed the bank ’ s l oss , i t w oul d obvi ousl y b e er ro r f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto o rderr est i tu tio n based on th e e a r l i e r l o we r ma r k e t v a l u e b e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e V WPA a nd M VRA ensur e that v i cti m s recoverthe fullam ount o f thei r l oss es, but nothi ng m or e. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ne wman , 14 4 F .3d 53 1, 54 2 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ). Se eal s o Unit e d State s v. Sm ith , 1 5 6 F
. 3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 7( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ [ A] di s t r i ct cour t ma y n o to r de r r e s t i t ut i o n i n a n a mou ntthat exceeds the l oss cause d by the defendant’s c onduct. S uch a r es tit u tio n or der would a m ount t o an i l l ega l se ntence. [T ]h e im p os itio n of an illega l se n t e n c e c on st itu te s p lain error. ”) ( intern al qu otations om itted ). Th us , w ha t Rob ers tr u ly se ek s is a o n e-w ay rat c h et . B u t “ th e ‘in te n d ed be n efici ar i es ’ o fthe M VRA’s p r o ce dur almech an i sms ‘ ar e th e16 N o. 10

- 3794

I fa di s t ri c tc our tha d en t er ed a r es t itutio n or der bas ed o n 7 the estim a t e d fair m ark et v alu e of the re al estate p rior to re sa le an d th e e v en tu a l sa le s p r o ce ed s en d ed u p h ig h er , a defen dantc ould com e bac k t o c our tan d re que s tthatthe re s t i t ut i on awar d be red u ced. Rathe r thans pec ul at e and then l ateradjust the re st itution award , w e beli eve the bette r appr oac h i s t o do what, ac c or di ng t o the g ove rn m en t, the E astern D istrict of W iscon sin d o e s: If the collate ral rea l estate has notbeen s old by the ti m e ofs ente nc ing, the court ente rs a res ti tuti on aw ard f or the t otal l oss to the vict im s a nd once the r ea l estate i s s ol d, the c our tm odi fi es the r es t i t ut i on a w a rd b a se d o n th e c a sh p ro ce ed s. vi cti m s, notthe vi cti m i zer s. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M or e l and, 622 F. 3d 1147, 11 72 ( 9th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. G rim es , 173 F.3d 634 , 639 (7th C ir. 1999)). 7

3 . S e v e nt h C i r c ui tpr e c e de nt Our ho l di ngi s con sist en t wi ththi s ci r cui t’ s pr ev i o us dec i si o ns r ea ch ed i n n o n- p recedent i alo r der s. I n U nited St at e s v. Cage, 36 5 F ed. A pp ’ x 684 , 68 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , this c o ur ts t a t e d: The r es ti tu ti o n a m o untpr o po se d b y the g o ve r nm en t a nd a do pt e d b y the c o ur t a t s e nt e nc i ng was the a m ount i n m or tgage l oans that Cage hel ped to f ra ud ule ntl y secur e l ess the am ount the l enders re cover ed thr ough the sa l e o fthe f ra ud ule ntl y purchas ed pr o per ti es . Thi s was a pr o perway t o c al cul at e th e am ou n t o f res tit u tio n [] ow ed

. . . .N o. 10

- 3794 17

I n U n i te d S tat es v. Sh epard , 26 9 F .3d 884 , 88 8 (7th C ir. 20 01 ), this 8 c our tal s o c ons i der ed the q u es t i on ofthe appr opr i at e am ount of offs et, bu t S hepa rd i s dist inguis hable from the cas e at han d. I n S hepa rd, the d efend an t arg u ed tha t “h e a n d his wife ‘ r e t u r n e d’ a b o u t$ 1 2 , 0 0 0 o fth e [ s t o l e n ] $ 9 2 , 0 0 0 b y us i ng itto m ake im prov em en ts in [t he vict im ’ s] hom e. ” Id

. at 887. W e not ed that“t o the e xt en ti m pro vem en t s i nc re as ed the (co n tin u ed ...) And i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bates , 13 4 F ed. A pp ’ x 955 ( 7th Ci r. 200 5 ) , we e xp l a i ne d the di ffe r e nc e b e t we e n the p r o per ty sto l en ( cash) a nd the proper ty re turned ( re ales tat e col l ate ra l ) st ati ng: B a t e s i n s i s t s th a tC o l d we l l d i d no t s u ffe r a n y c o mpen sabl e l o ss b ec au se i t en ded up w i ththe re si dence, and thatthe “l oss ” cl ai m ed by the r eal tor i n f ac t co ns i st s o funr ec o ve r abl e “ i nc i den ta l a nd conse quenti al dam age s” and “l ostpro fi ts. ” Bate s, th o ug h, di d no t ta k e a hou se f r o m Co l dwel l ; s he caused the r eal tor to lo se cash, but cash i s no t w hat was “returned” to Col dw el l

. Col dw el l as su m ed te m p or ar y ow n er sh ip of th e re sid en c e o n ly as a m eans ofm i ti gat i ng Bates ’ s fra u d , and so l ong as Col dw el l poss ess ed a r esi dence it did notwant i nstea d ofthe fund s Bate s ca used i t t o expend , the re al torwas n otm ad e w h ole

— Bat es ’ s f r au d pl ac ed Col dwel l i n the p ositi on of real estat e sell er rathe r than realtor. Id. at 958. T he se Seven th Circu it decisions, thou g h , a s note d , are no n- p re ce den ti al

. The o th erc i r cui ts a r e spl i t o n the 818 N o. 10

- 3794

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 m ar ke tval ue of[ the vi c t i m ’ s ] house , an d t hus wer e ( or c oul d have be en ) r ea l i ze d b y [the vi c t i m ’ s ] e s t at e i n s el l i ng th e p ro p er ty , th e fu n d s w er e ‘re tu rn ed ’ fo r st a tu to ry p u rp o se s.” Id

. W e c ont i nue d: “It is no di ff er en ti n pr i nc i pl e f ro m t aki ng the m on ey fro m o ne o f [the v ictim ’ s] b an k acco u nts an d d ep ositing i t in a n o ther a week lat er. So l ong as [ the vict im ] regai ned benefic ial use ofthe prop erty, i t has been ‘ ret u rn ed’ as § 3663A(b) ( 1) ( B)( ii ) uses thatte rm . ” Id

. a t 8 8 7

- 8 8
. I n S hepa rd, though, the gove rn m en td i d notc ont en d t hatthe “the c han ge o f th e p ro p er ty ’s form

— f r om c a s h t o, s ay, ce ntral ai r c ond iti oni ng

— p reclu d es a co nc lusio n th at the p ro p erty has be en ‘ returned

. ’ ” Id

. at88 8. M or eo ver, i n S hepa rd, the vict im w as usi ng an d b en efi tt ing from the hom e i m prov em en t s , wher ea s i n thi s c ase, the vi c t i m s wer e notus i ng the colla tera l, b u t w ere m erely attem p ting to sell th e c o l l ater al to reco u p their sto len p ro p erty

— ca sh

. Final ly, w hil e S hepa rd rem and ed the c ase f or deter m ination of“the am ount by w hich im prov em ents enhanced the m arket value ofthe house, ” the re w as n o d iscussio n co nc ern ing the a p p ro p riate tim e for this val uat i on, i
. e. , upon re s al e ofthe ho us e or atthe t i m e the h o m e i m p ro v em en ts w er e m a d e. Id . T h u s, S hepa rd doe s no t an sw er th e qu estion b efore u s. The f ol l owi ng c a s e s i nt e r pr e tbo th the MV RA a nd i t s pr ede- 9 ces sor, the Vi c t i m a nd W i t ne s s P r ot e c t i onAc to f1 982 (“V W P A ”). U nlik e the M V R A , the V W P A requ ired cou rts to c on sid er the e c ono m i c c i rc um s t anc es ofthe defen dantpr i or to orderi ng res ti tutio n , a nd the granti ng of res ti tuti on w as d isc re t io n a ry , no t m a n d a to ry . S ee18 U .S. C
. § 36 63
. “W ith (co n tin u ed ...) appr o pr i at e o ff se t amoun t to us e i n calcul at i ngr es ti tu
tio n . In a se rie s o f ca se s, th e N in th C irc u it h a s h eld 9N o. 10

- 3794 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 the se excep tion s, the tw o statu tes are id en tical i n all im port a ntr e s pe c t s , a nd c ou r t s i nt e r pr e t i ng the MV RA m ay loo k t o a nd rel y on case s int erpret ing the V W PA as precedent. ” Se e Uni t e d Stat e s v. Gor do n, 393 F. 3d 1044, 1048 (9 th C ir . 20 0 4 ). th atthe o ff se t amoun t i s the f ai r mar k etv al ue o fthe col l ate ra l r eales tat e a t the date off or ecl osu re w hen th e vi ct i m - l en dert o o kt i tl e an d c o ul d ha ve s o l d i t f o r c as h. SeeU nite d State s v. Sm ith , 94 4 F
. 2d 618, 6 25- 26 ( 9th C ir. 1991); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H ut ch i s on, 22 F. 3d 846, 85 6 ( 9th Cir
. 19 93 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cat he r i ne, 55 F. 3d 1462 , 14 65 (9th C ir. 1995); U ni t e d St at e s v. D avou di, 17 2 F
. 3d 1130 , 11 35 (9t h C ir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. G o ssi, 60 8 F
. 3d 574, 57 8 ( 9th Cir
. 20 10) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ye ung, 672 F. 3d 594, 605 ( 9th Cir. 20 12 ). Th e Se c on d an d Fif th C irc u its h av e s im ilar ly hel d that in a m or tgage fraud case, the re sti tuti on o ff set i s ba se d o n the f ai r mar k etv al ue ofthe c o l l at er ala t th e tim e itis re tu rn ed to th e v ict im
. Se eU ni t e d S t at es v. Bocc agna , 45 0 F
. 3d 107, 120 (2 d Ci r. 20 06) ; U nited Sta tes v. H o lley, 2 3 F
. 3d 90 2, 9 15 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 4)
. C onv er se l y, the T h ird , E igh th , an d T en th C irc u its h av e h eld th at it is properto bas e the off setval ue o n the eve ntual amoun t r ec o upe d by th e vi ct i m f o l l o wi ng sa le ofthe c olla te ra l rea l es ta te
. See U nited Sta tes v. H im ler, 35 5 F. 3d 735, 745 (3d C ir . 2004); U ni t e d S t at e s v. St at m an , 60 4 F.3 d 52 9, 53 8 (8 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Ja m es , 5 64 F.3d 123 7, 1246 -47 (10th C ir. 2009).20 N o. 10

- 3794 4. C ircu its h old in g th at th e o ffse t va lu e is d ete rmi ne d b a s e d o n t he e s t i m at ed f a i rma r ke tv a l ue of the collate ra l sec u ri n g the loan s at t h e d ate of for eclosu re w h en titl e is t rans ferred to t he l end er Our c o nc l us i o n c o nfl i ct s wi ththe v i ew o fthe Ni nth, Fi fth, and Se cond C i rcui ts. A s no ted abo ve, tho se cour ts all h eld th at th e o ffs e t am ou n t is th e e st im at ed fair m ar ketval ue o fthe col l ate ra l at t h e date o ff or ecl osur e. I n re achi ng this co ncl usi on, the cour ts al l purport ed to re l y o n the pla i n l anguage o fthe M VRA , st re ssi ng tha t und er the M VRA , cour ts ar e to re du ce t h e resti tuti on a wa r d b y “ the v a l ue ( a s o fthe da te th e proper tyi s r eturned)

. ” But none oftho se case s a c tu al l y a dd re sse d the quest i on o fwh at constitu tes “the pro perty ” under th e st atut e. And the i r co nc l us i o ns a r e ba se d o n the cour ts i m proper l y t re ati ng the co l late ra l r eco ver ed as th e pr o per tys to l en .

a. Th e N inth Circu it Exa m i ni ngthe de ve l o pm en t o fthe c as e l aw in the N in th C irc u it illu m in at es th is om iss ion
. Sm i t h was the fi r sto fthe c as es t o c ons iderthe a ppr o pr i at e o ff se t i n a si m i l arsi tuati on

— w here the vi cti m l ent c ash ba sed o n th e defen dan t’ s f r au d a nd e ve ntua l l y f o r ec l o se d o n the re ales tat e s ecuring the l oan. S m ith , 944 F.2d at62 0-2 1. In Sm ith , the d efend an t as s e r t ed “tha t the district cou rt f ai l ed to g i ve hi m a dequa te c r edi t againstthe r es ti tu
tio n am ou n t f o r th e v alu e o f th e c olla te ra l p ro p er ty ,” ar g ui ngth atthe c o ur t sh o ul d ha ve us ed th e va l ue o ftheN o. 10

- 3794 21

re ales tat e a t the ti m e th e vi cti m s r ega i ned ti tl e t o th e p ro p er ty
. Id. at62 5. S m i th al l ege d “that because th e va l ue o fTe xa s re al e st at e st ea di l y de cl i ne d thr o ug hou t the t i m e i n que st i o n, the meas ur emento fthe proper ty’ s v al ue atthe l ate r dates re sul ted i n an inadequate cr edi t f orthe col l ate ra l pro perty, and that ther ef or e the r est i tution fi gure i s f arto o hi gh. ” Id. The N i nth Ci r c ui ta g r e e d wi th de fe nd a ntS m i th. And Sm ith se rv es as the l i n c h p i n f o r fu r th e r c a s e s . B e c a u s e th e c o u r twe nt as tr ayi n S m it h by apply i ng l anguage i n the m uch differ ent pr oper ty re sti tuti on case ( T yler ) , we quote i ts re as on in g in fu ll: W e a gr ee w i th S m i th t h at the dist ri ct c ourtused i ncor re ct date s in val uingthe proper ty. The A ct pr ovi des thati fa vi cti m has su ffer ed a l oss o fpro perty, th e di stric t co ur t m ayo r derr es ti tu ti o n i n the am ount o fthis lo ss “l ess the val ue ( as of t hedat et he pro perty is return ed ) o fany part of the pr oper ty that is re tu rn ed .” 18 U .S.C . § 36 63 A (b )(1) (em p h as is ad d ed ). W e in te rp re te d t h i s p or tio n of th e A c t in U nited Sta tes v. T

yler, 76 7 F .2d 1 350 ( 9th Ci r. 19 85) ( T yler ) , i n w hi ch Tyl erpl ed gui l ty to theft o fti m ber and w as or dered to pay re st i tuti on under the A ct. The di st r i ctc o ur t det er m i ne d the a m o unto fr es ti tu
ti on a s th e d i ffer ence between the val ue o fthe ti m ber atthe t i m e o fs en te nc i nga nd the hi g her va lue atthe tim e o f th eft

. Id. a t 1 351
. Be ca us e th e g o ve r nm en t re cove re d the t i m ber o n the day o fthe theft, how eve r, we concl ud ed that “[a]n y reducti on i n i ts va lu e s t e m s fro m th e g ov er n m en t’s d ec isio n to h old th e tim berduri ng a peri od ofdecl i ni ng pri ces, not22 N o. 10

- 3794 f ro m Tyl er ’ s cr i m i nal act s. ” Id. at13 52. The va l ue o f the p ro p erty “ ‘ as ofthe date the pro perty[ w as] r eturned’ ” e quale d the am ount l ostwh en the ti m berwas sto l en, and ther ef or e re sti tuti on under the A ct was in ap p ro p ria te
. Id. ( quoti ng 18 U
. S. C. § 3 579, wh i ch w as su b se q u en tly ren u m b er ed as 18 U .S.C . § 36 63 ). The s ame r ea so ni ngsh o ul d a ppl y i n de te r m i ni ng the v alue o fthe col l ate ra l pro pertyi n thi s ca se. Sm i th sho uld r ecei ve cre ditag ai nst the r est i tuti on am ount f orthe val ue o fthe col l ate ra l pro pertyas o f the date ti tl e t o the pr operty w as tr ansfer re d to ei th er Savi ngs & Loan orGib ra l tar
. A s o fthat dat e, the n ew o wnerha d the po wert o di spo se o fthe p ro p er ty an d rec eiv e c om p en sa tio n . C f. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 36 63 ( e) ( 1) ( r es ti tu ti o n may b e o r der ed f o r a ny per so n who ha s co m pen sa te d a vi ct i m ). Val ue shoul d ther ef or e b e m eas ured bywh at the fi nanci al i ns t i t ut i o n wo ul d ha v e r e c e i v e d i n a s a l e a s o fthat date. A ny r educti on i n val ue after Sm i th l ostti tl e t o the pr oper ty ste m s fro m a deci si on bythe new own er s t o hol d on to the pro perty ; to m ake S m i th pay re s t itu tio n for t h at bu sin es s los s is im p ro p er . See T yler, 76 7 F
. 2d at13 52. The vi cti m s in thi s ca se “r ec eiv e[d ] co m p en sa tio n ” w h en th ey rec eiv ed tit le to th e p r o p er ty an d th e c or re sp on d in g a b ility to se ll it for ca sh ; th e v alu e o f th e c om p en sa tio n sh ou ld ther ef or e be m eas ured and dedu cted fro m t he to tal l oss fi gure as o fthe date t i tl e was tr ansfe rre d. 18 U. S
. C. § 3 6 6 3 ( e) ( 1)
. Be c a us e the l a w i s c l e a r, t o do o th er wi se woul d b e anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Id. at62 5- 26.N o. 10

- 3794 23 T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l fl a ws i n Sm ith ’ s r eas oni ng. Fi rs t, Sm i t h qu o t e d, wi th e mpha s i s , the “ l e s s the v a l ue ( a s o f th e dat e th e pr o per ty i s r etur ne d) ” l an g ua g e f r o m the M VRA , but i gnor ed the f act that the pr oper ty r etur ned w as n otth e p ro p er ty st ole n . SeeSm ith , 9 4 4 F
. 2 d a t63 1- 32 ( O’ S ca nnl ain, J
. , di ss en ting ) ( ex pla i ni ngtha t th e m aj or i ty “er ro neously tr eat s the fi ve col l ate ra l pro perti es as if th ey are so m eh ow eq u iva len t t o t h e s to len ca p ita l,” b u t “ [w ]h at Sm ith st ol e w a s c ap ita l, an d to res to re h is vi ct i ms t o th e s t a t u s q u o a n t e , h e mu s t r e t u r n t he prese nt va l ue o fthatcapi tal

. ”)
. S eco nd , and re l ate dly, th e N i nth Ci r cui t i n Sm ith r el i ed heavi l y o n its deci si on i n T ylerto support i ts re aso ni ng, but Sm ith ’ s relia nce o n T yler was mis pl ac ed be ca us e i n T yler, the defen dan t was c harged w i ththe ft o fg o ve r nm en t ti m be r a nd the exa c t s a me pr o pe r t y ( i
. e . , the t i mbe r ) wa s r e c o v e r ed on th e v er y d ay of t h e t h eft . Th u s, T ylerdoe s not su p p ort th e vi ew tha t “the pr o per ty ” i n the M V RA m ea ns a ny pr o per tyr etur ne d, a s o ppo sed to the pr o per tys to l en . SeeSm ith , 94 4 F
. 2d at 632 ( O’S cannl ain , J
. , di sse nti ng) ( “Nordo es o urde ci si o n i n U nit e d S ta tes v. T yler, 76 7 F
. 2d 13 50 ( 9th Ci r . 1 98 5) , upo n w hich b o ththe m ajorit y a n d Sm ith rely , su p p or t t h e c ou rt ’s h old in g. See a nte at 624- 25. A d efr au ded l ender’ s a ssum pti on o f ti tl e o ve r c o l l at er alpr o p er tytha t i s i ts el fpa r t o fthe fraud i s in no w ay an alogou s t o a ti m ber ow ne r’s r e c ov er y of s to len tim b er .”) T h ird , Sm ith r e a s o ne d t hat as of th e d at e t h e v ict im rec eiv e d tit le t o t h e c olla te ra l, the ne w o w ner had the power t o dispos e o fthe re al es ta te a nd r ec ei ve c o m pen sa ti o n, a nd a cc o r dingly the va l ue o fthe r ea l e st at e sh o ul d be ba se d o n the a m o unt24 N o. 10

- 3794 the fi na nc i a l i ns t i t ut i o n wo ul d ha v e r e c e i v e d i n a s al e a s ofthatdate. Thi s r eas oni ng i gnor es the r eal ity that re alpro pertyi s n ot l i quid and, abs ent a huge pri ce di scount, cannotbe sol d i m m edi ate l y. Fo u rth and fi nal l y, th e co ur t i n Sm ith un re asonabl y a ssum ed that any r edu ctio n “ after Sm i th l ostti tl e t o the pr oper ty ste m s fro m a de c i s i o n b y the new o wne r s t o h o l d o n t o the p r o per ty. ” Sm ith , 944 F.2d at 625

. Th is r a t io n a le also i nc orre c tly as su m es th at rea l es ta te is liqu id

— w hi ch i t i s no t. W e say all of th is bec au se th e N in th C irc u i t ’ s d ec isi o n i n Sm ith se rv ed as the k eys tone f oral l o fthe subseq u en t d ec isio n s h old in g t h at th e o ff s e t v alu e is th e fa ir m ar ketvalu e of the co l l ate ra l r eales tat e o n the date th e ti tl e to the c o l l at er alrev erted to the v i ct i m . F o r i nstanc e, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. H ut ch i ns on , 2 2 F
. 3 d 8 4 6 ( 9th C ir. 1993), th e d efend an t ch all en ged the d istrict cou rt’s use o fthe fi nal sa l es pri ce a s the o ff setval ue. Based o n Sm ith , the N i nth Cir cui t agr eed thatthe appropri ate o ff se t was the v al ue o fthe c o ll at er ala t th e ti m e th e b an k g ain ed co n tr ol of t h e re al e st at e. Sim i l a r ly, in U ni t e d Sta tes v. Cat he r i ne, 55 F. 3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1995), th e d efe n d an t a rg u ed th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld ha ve v alue d the r ea l e st at e f o r o ff se t pur po se s atthe ti m e the vi cti m f or ecl ose d on the col l ate ra l r ealestat e, and the N in th Ci rcui t s tat ed: “W e deci ded thi s e xact i ss ue i n H ut ch i ns on , i d. at 8 54- 56, wh i ch i n turn, r el i ed o n U nite d State s v. Sm ith

. ” Id. at 1465
. The cour t in Cath e r i nethen f ol l owed t h ese prec edents a nd r eve rs ed an d r emande d the c as e f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t to va l ue th e colla te ra l at th e tim e th e ba n k rec ei v e d t i t l e. Id. And i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. D avou di, 172 F.3d 113 0 (9th C ir. 1999),N o. 10

- 3794 25 the N i nth Cir cui t aga i n hel d that the dist ri ct cour t erred i n basin g i ts off setval uati on o n the eve ntual sa l es pri ce ofthe col l ate ra l

. D a voud ip a r r o t e d Sm ith ’ s r ea so ni nga nd c i t e d Sm i t h, Cat he r i ne, a nd H ut ch i ns on . Then i n U nited S t a tes v. G o ssi, 6 0 8 F
. 3 d 5 74 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , the Ni nth Ci r cui t r el i ed o n D avou di, to c onc lud e: “U nd er th is Cou rt’s pr ec ede nt, the di st r i ctc o ur t r ea so nabl y f o und tha t [ th e vi ct im ] ha d the po wert o di spo se o fthe pr o per tya t th e ti m e i t to o kc o nt r o l o fthe pr o per tya t f o reclosur e. ‘ Val ue sh o ul d the r e f o r e b e me a s ur e d b y wh a tthe fi na nc i al in st itu tio n w ou ld h av e re c eiv ed in a sa le a s o f th at d at e.’ ” Id. at 578 ( quoti ng Sm ith , 944 F.2d at 625 ). The fi nal and m ostr ecentd ec isio n fro m the N i nth Cir cui t i s U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ye ung, 672 F.3d 594 ( 9th Cir. 2 0 1 2 )
. I n Yeu ng, the cour t co nsi dered the pro pri etyo f seve ra l r est i tuti on o rder s t o fi nanci ali nsti tuti ons w hi ch suffer ed l oss es f ol l owing a fra ud ule nt r eales tat e s c he me a nd s t a t e d: Us i n g th e f r a me w o r k s e t f o r th i n § 3 6 6 3 A ( b ) , we ha ve de ve l o p ed so m e g ui del i ne s f o r c al cul at i ngthe restitut ion am ou nt i n a c a se involving a d efend an t’s f r au dul en t sc he m e to o bt ain s ec ur ed r ea l e st at e l o an s f r o m l en der s. Ge ne r al l y, di st r i ctc o ur ts c al cul at i ng a d irect l en d er’s l oss in this con t e x t b egin by d eterm i ni ng the am ount o fthe unp ai d p rinci pal bal ance due o n the fr audul en t l o an, l es s th e va l ue o fthe re alpro pertyco l l ate ra l as o fthe date the di re ct len d er to ok c on tr ol of th e p r o p er ty
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. H ut ch i s on , 22 F .3d 84 6, 85 6 (9 th C ir. 19 93 ); U nited State s v. Sm ith , 94 4 F
. 2d 6 18, 62 5- 26 ( 9th Ci r. 19 91)26 N o. 10

- 3794 (c on st r u i n g t h e V W P A ). B ec au se res tit u tio n sh ou ld ad d re ss a vi cti m ’ s “ actuall oss es, ” se e Sm ith , 9 4 4 F
. 2d at 626, we have a pp ro ved r est i tuti on a w ar ds that i ncl ud ed other am ounts i n the cal culat i on o fl oss , su cha s pr ej udg m en t i nt er es t ( us i ng th e g o ve r nm en ta l loan rat e), i d., i nt er es t st i l l due o n the l o an, D avou di, 17 2 F
. 3d at 1136 , and expenses ass oci ate d wi thho l di ngthe r ea l e st at e co l l at er alth atwer e i ncur r ed bythe l en derb efo r e i t to o kt i tl e to the p ro p er ty , H ut ch i s on , 22 F. 3d at 856. To c al cul ate the v al ue o fthe re al proper ty col l ate ra l “a s o fthe date the pr oper ty i s r etur ned, ” § 3663A ( b) ( 1) ( B)( i i ) , co urts u se th e v alu e o f th e colla te ra l “a s of th e d at e t h e v ict im too k contr ol ofthe proper ty, ” D avou di, 172 F. 3d at 1134
. The l ender do es not tak e co ntro l o fthe col l ate ra l m er ely by trig ge rin g t h e fo re c los u re p ro c es s . See U nited Sta tes v. G o ssi, 608 F. 3d 574, 578 (9th Cir. 2010 ) . Rather, the l ender gener al l y t ake s co ntro l o n the date the l ender eithe r ( 1) r ecei ves the ne t p rocee d s from the sale of th e coll ateral to a third p ar ty atth e fo re c los u re sa le, see U nited Sta tes v. Jam es , 56 4 F .3d 12 37, 1 2 4 6 ( 10 th C ir. 20 09 ), or (2) t ak es tit le to the r eales tat e co l l ate ra l atthe f or ecl os u re sa l e, at w hi ch tim e “the new o w ner had the power t o dispos e o fthe proper ty and rec ei ve com pensati on, ” see Sm i t h, 94 4 F
. 2d at 625. The di re ct l en d er ’ s l oss es m ay al so be r educed by am ou n ts re couped fr om r esa l e o f the l oan orfro m o therty pes o f“r etur n ” ofpro perty
. Se e, e . g. , H ut ch i s on , 22 F. 3d at 856. Id. at60 1.N o. 10

- 3794 27

Yeun g al s o h el d t hat“whe n a vi c t i m pur c has ed a l oani n the 10 se con da r y m a r ke t, tha ti s , whe r e the vi c t i m i s the l oan purc has er as opp os ed t o the l oanor i gi nat or . . . the val ue of that loa n i s no tne c es s ar i l y i t s unpa i d pri nc i pal bal anc e, but m ay var y with the val ue ofthe c ol l at er al, the c re di tr at i ng o f the b or ro w er, m a r k e t con d ition s, or o the r factors, [ an d thu s] the loan purchase r m ay hav e purchased the l oan f or l es s than it s unp a id princi pal balance. ” Yeun g, 67 2 F
. 3d a t60 1- 02
. The N i nth Ci rc ui ti n Yeun g the n rem and ed the c ase to the dist ri ct c ou r tt o r e c a l c ul a t e the r e s t i t ution a war d. Ro be r s fi l e d Yeun g as s uppl em en t al auth or it y a nd ar gue d t hat, as i n Y eung, re m and i s r equi re d t o de t er m i ne th e p rice atwhi c h the l oan s w ere pu rchas ed in the s econdary m arket. Ro bers, how ever, had never previousl y argued ( ei ther bef ore the d ist rictcourt or i n b ri efi ng or at oral argum ent) thatthe res ti tuti on aw ard w as im p ro perly based on the outst and ing princ ipal balance, as opp ose d t o s om e pot en t i al l y l ower am ountpai d f or the loans i n the se condary m arket. Theref ore, he has w aived the se issues. O n th e b as is of t h is p r e c e d e n t, th e N in th C irc u it in Yeu ngthen re ver sed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r est i tuti on aw ar ds, wh i ch w er e ba sed o n the subsequent sal es pri ce ofthe re ales tat e, and re m anded to the dist ri ct c ourt
. 10 As th e ab o v e e x c e r p tfr o m Yeu ngm ake s c lear, i ts ho l di ngwas ba se d o n the wel l

- es tabl i sh ed pr ec ede nt th a tfl o we d fr o m Sm i th. And as di sc us se d abo ve , no ne oftho se case s a dd re sse d the fund am entaldi stinc tio n between the proper ty sto l en ( cash) and the p ro p er ty re c ov er e d ( re al e st at e). L ike its p re d ec es so rs , Yeu ngd id not re cogni ze that the Sm ith de ci si o n r el i ed o n T yler, whi chwas f ac tu al l y di st ingu i sh ab l e f r o m a l l o fthe28 N o. 10

- 3794

case s a t hand beca use T yl er i nv o l ve d a c as e wher e th e prop e r t y the de fe nd a ntwa s c ha r g e d wi th s t e a l i ngwas th e sam e as the p rop erty retu rned to the victim ( tim ber) and the theft a nd r etur n happ ened on the sa m e day.
b . Th e Fifth C ir cu it The Sm ith d ec isio n h as likew ise se r v e d a s th e b as is f o r o th erc i r cui ts ho l di ngtha t th e o ff setv al ue i s th e va lu e o f th e c olla te ra l a t t h e t im e o f fore c los u re . In U nited Sta tes v. Ho lley, 2 3 F
. 3d 90 2, 9 15 ( 5th Ci r . 1 99 4) , the F i fthCi r cui t, li k e th e N i nth Ci r cui t, he l d tha t th e o ff se t value s ho ul d b e ba se d o n the f ai r mar k etv al ue o n the da te o ff o r ec l o su r e. I n c o m i ng to thi s co nc l us i o n, th e F i fthCi r cui t fi r sts ta te d tha t it s dec i si o n i n U nited Sta tes v. R eese, 99 8 F
. 2d 1275 ( 5th Ci r. 1 99 3), dict ate d th e r es ul t. I t no te d tha t i n R eesei th a d expla in ed that “i t would appearthatthe ‘ proper ty’ a s t o wh i c h [ the s a v i ng s a nd l o a n] mi g hthave su ffer ed ‘d am ag e t o or loss or d es tr u c tio n of’ co u ld o nl y b e l o anpr o ce eds funde d i n c as h a t th e or igin al c los in g of [t h e im p ro p er ly ex te n d ed ] loan .” Id. at12 83. H owever, we al so expla i ned t hat when the r ealpro pertyth at s ecure s s uch a l oan i s deeded backto the fi nanci ali nsti tuti on , “ th e v al ue o f such proper ty shoul d consti tute a p arti alr etur n of the ‘ cash l oan proce eds. ’ ” Id. at12 84. H o lley, 23 F. 3d at 915. Butthe c o ur t’ s r ea so ni ngi n R eese w as lim ite d t o th is sta tem ent: “C onceptual l y, i t would s eem to us thatN o. 10

- 3794 29

w hen a l ender accepts co nveya nce o fthe sec u re d proper ty i n l i eu o ff or ecl osur e, the val ue o f su chpr o per ty sho ul d c o ns ti tu te a pa r ti alr etur n o fthe

‘ cash l oan proce eds. ’ ” R eese, 99 8 F.2d at 128 4. Thi s r easo n in g i gn or es th e fac t th at th e vic tim ac c ep te d t h e c o ll at er alr ea l e st at e, no t i n l i eu o fthe c as h pr o ce eds , b ut i n or der t o sel l and re coup the cash pr oce eds. A fter ci ting th e reason ing of R eese, th e cou rt i n H o lley then turned to Sm ith , sta tin g: The S m it h co u rth eld th at th e d efe n d an t “ sh ou ld re cei ve cre ditag ai nst the r est i tuti on a m ount f or the v al ue o fthe col l ate ra l pro pertyas ofthe date titl e to th e p rop erty w as tran sferred ” to th e FS L I C ’s su c c es so r. Id. at 625
. The co urt re aso ned that, as o f that date, “th e n ew o w ner had the power t o dispos e ofthe proper ty and rec ei ve com pensati on. ” Id. The Sm ith co urt concl ud ed that th e va lu e o fthe re turned proper ty “should ther ef or e be m eas ured bywh at th e fi na nc i ali ns ti tu ti o n wo ul d hav e r ec ei ve d i n a sal e a s o fth at d ate
. A ny r educti on i n val ue after [ th e d e fe n d a n t ] l o s tt i t l e t o th e p r o p e r t y s t e ms f ro m a deci si on bythe new o w ners to h old on to the pr oper ty. ” Id. H o lley, 23 F. 3d at 915. Unl i k e th e N i nth Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n i n Sm ith , t he Fi fth C i r c u i ti n H o l l ey at least ackn ow ledge d the gove rnm en t’s ar g um en t “tha t th e ‘ pr o per ty ’ tha t was l o stwas [ th e ba nk ’ s] c api ta l a nd tha t the r etur n o f[ th e r ea l e st at e] t o [ th e bank ] r epr es en ts o nl y the r etur n o fthe c o l l at er alf o r the30 N o. 10

- 3794 actualpro pertyi nvol ved i n thi s ca se” and that i t wa s not u nti l that col l ate ra l w as sol d for cash that the v ict im re gai ned i ts proper ty
. Id

. But H o lleydi d no t pr o vi de an y basi s f ori gnor i ng thi s di sti ncti on, ot her than ci ti ng i ts pr ev i o us de ci si o n i n R eese . Se ei d. And R eese m er ely co ncl ud ed that ther e was no “co nceptual ” di ffer ence. R eese, 99 8 F
. 2d at 1284
. H owever, as expl ai ned abov e, the t wo a r e no t c o nc e ptua l l y e qu i v a l e nt : c a s h i s l i qu i d, re al est ate i s not; the col l ate ra l secur ed th e cash l oan

— it w as not the c ash l oan; and the vi cti m had cash b e f o r e the fr a ud a nd wa nt e d c a s h b a c ka s i t s r etur ned pr o per ty
. I n s ho r t, we fi nd the F i fthCi r cuit’s r ea so ni ng i n R eese u n p e r s u a s i v e a n d th u s i t s d e c i s i o n i n H o lley add s no thi ng to the anal ysi s.

c. Th e S econ d Circu it Fi nal l y, the Se cond Cir cui t a dd re sse d the is su e ofo ff set val ue i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bocc agna , 450 F.3d 107( 2d Cir. 20 06 )
. I n Bocc agna , the de fen dan ts wer e ch ar g ed i n a m or tg age fra ud sche m e invol vi ng the U ni ted S tat es D ep artm ento fHous inga nd Urban De ve l op m en t (“H U D ”). Id. at109 -11 0. H U D fo re cl ose d on the col l ate ra l and then re sol d the r eales tat e at a fracti on o fthei r f ai r m ar ket va l ue to the New Yo r kCi tyDe par tmento fHous i ng Pres er vati on a nd Devel opm ent in or der t o furtheri ts m iss ion to d ev elo p low

- c o s t h ou sin g. Id. at11 0. W hen consi deri ng the appropri ate am ount by w hi ch to offset the v i cti m ’ s l oss , the Bocc agna co urt i ni ti al l y noted that th e g ov er n m en t d id n otarg u e t h at “t h e p ro p er ty th at is re turned” la n gu age o fthe M VRA o nl y a pp l i es to actualN o. 10

- 3794 31

T he c ourti n Boc cagna also cited this cou rt’ s d ecision in 11 S hepa rd . B u t a s d isc u sse d ab o v e, seesupra at 17- 18 n. 8, Shepar d is dist inguis hable. cash a nd notto “a ny pro p er ty that H U D obta i ned after defa ult

. ” Id. at11 2 n. 2. The cour t then sai d that “[ s] uch an ar g um en t woul d no t be c o nv i nc i ng, ” butb as ed i ts ho l di ng on pre cedent fro m the Fi fth and N i nth Cir cui ts. Id. 11 Bocc agna e xp l a i ne d: A s t w o ofo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts, co nstr uingidenti calo ff set l anguage i n the Vict i m and W itn ess Pro tect i on Act, codi fied at 18 U
. S. C. § 3 663, have co ncl ud ed, wh en a l ende r victi m acqui re s t i tl e t o proper ty secur i ng a l oan, “the va l ue o fsuch pro perty shoul d consti tute a par ti alret u rn o fthe cash l oan proce eds. ” U nited St at e s v. Hol l ey, 23 F. 3d 902, 91 5 ( 5th Ci r. 19 94) ( i nter nal q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); s e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . S mi t h, 94 4 F
. 2d 61 8, 6 25 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 1) ( ho l di ng tha t defen dant “sho uld r ecei ve c re ditag ai nst the r est i tuti on am ount f orthe val ue o fthe col l ate ra l pro pertyas o fthe da t e t i t l e t o the p r o pe r t ywa s t r a ns fe r r e d” to len d er vic tim ). Bocc agna , 45 0 F
. 3d at 112 n. 2. The S ec o nd Ci r cui t i n Bocc agna then w ent o n to hol d that th e o ffse t v alu e sh ou ld ge n er ally be ba se d on th e fa ir m ar ketval ue o fthe re ales tat e a t the ti m e o ff orecl osur e. Id. at 10 9. Bocc agna , thus, adds nothing to the anal ysi s, ha vi ngmer el y r el i ed o n Hol l ey a nd Sm ith

— w hich w ere i ncor re ct forthe re aso ns not ed abo ve.32 N o. 10

- 3794 I n s um , a s o urde ta i l ed di sc us si o n o fthe Ni nth, F i ftha nd Se c on d C irc u its ’ d ec isio n s ex p lain s, th os e d ec isio n s a ll re l i ed o n the k ey st o ne de ci si o n i n Sm ith

. And the N i nth Ci r cui t’ s r ea so ni ngi n Sm ith is flaw ed f orse ver al re as on s: Sm ith pu rp orted to rel y up on t h e statu tory l an g ua g e buti g no r ed th e di st i nc ti o n b etwee n the proper ty sto l en ( cash) and the proper ty re turned ( re al est ate )
. Com pound i ng thi s e rr orwas Sm ith ’ s r e l i a nce o n T ylerwhi chwas f ac tu al l y di st i nc t. I n Tyler, th e de fen dant w as c h arged with s tea l i ng ti m berand the proper ty re cove re d

— on the sam e d ay as t h e th eft

— w as tim ber. T h u s, T

ylerdo es no t an swe r th e que st i o n o fthe appr o pr i at e o ff se t val ue wher e th e pr o per tys to l ena nd r etur ne d di ffer . The Ni nth Ci r cui t i n Sm ith also tre ate d re al e st at e a s a liqu id a ss et . B u t itw as n otliqu id be ca us e th e co l l at er alcou ld notb e tu r ne d i nt o c as h the sa m e dayt i tl e tr an sfer r ed. The c o ur t m i sc o ns tr ue d the m ar ketf or ces by ass um i ng th at t he o nl y r eas on co l l ate ra l w oul d not be i m m edia te ly turned i nto cash woul d be a del iber ate deci si on bythe vi cti m to hol d o n to the pr oper ty. Be y o nd Sm ith ’ s f aulty re aso ni ng, the onl y a dd i ti onal r at i o na l e f o r us i ngthe v al ue o fr ea l e st at e a t t he ti m e th e vi cti m o btained ti tl e t o the c ol l ate ra l was the Fi fth Ci r cui t’ s vi ew i n R eeseth at, con c ep tu all y , o b ta in in g t itle to re ales tate is the s am e a s r ecei vi ng ca sh. But i t i s no t: re al e st at e is n otliqu id ; i t is n otw h at w as st ole n ; i t is no t what th e vi ct i m want s; an d i t do es no t be ne fit the vi cti m in an y w ay unti l i t i s turned backi nto cash upon re sa le. A c c or d in gly , i t is on l y w h en th e re al e st at e is conve rt ed i nto cash thro ugh a future sale that the off set va l ue s ho ul d b e det er m i ne d. The pl ain l an gu age o ftheN o. 10

- 3794 33

A s d isc u sse d ea rl ie r, seesupra at 23 , Jud g e O ’ Sca nn l ain 12 di s s en t ed i n the pi vot al Ninth Ci rcu it opin i on ( U n i te d S tat es v. S m ith ), pr efer ri ng the s am e appr oac h t o the off s etval uat i on la te r a p p ro v ed b y th e T h ir d , E ig h th , an d T en th C ir cu its
. M VRA di ctat es thi s co ncl usi on b ecause “the va l ue ( as of th e d ate t heprope r ty i s r e t urne d) , ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 6 6 3 ( b) ( em phasi s a dd ed), i n the conte xt ofthe sta tute m ust m ean th e prop erty taken from the victim

. Bu t even i f th ere w ere an y a m b igu ity in th e m ea n in g of “t h e pr op er ty ,” w e w ou ld i nter pret that l anguage to bes t a chi eve the sta tutor y goa l o f th e M VRA

— to m ak e t h e v ict im w h ole

— an d th is go al is bestachi eve d by ca l cul ati ng re sti tuti on base d o n the a ctual cash pr oce eds r eco up ed f ol l owing the re sal e of any c ol l ater alr eales tat e.

5. C ircu its h old in g th at th e o ffse t va lu e is d ete rm i ned bas ed on t he cash pro ceeds r ecouped f ol l ow i ng r esal e o ft he col l at er al r eal est at e. Th i s b r i n g s u s n o w t o th e d e c i s i o n s f r o m th e T hi r d, E igh th an d T en th C irc u i ts , w h ich h av e a ll he ld th at th eir r es pec ti ve di st r i ctc o ur ts c o r r ec tly us ed, a s th e o ff se t va l ue f orcal cul ati ng r est i tuti on, the eve ntual p ro ceeds re couped f ol l owing a f or ecl osur e s al e. 12

a. T h e T h ir d Circu it The Thi r d Ci r cui t a d d ress ed th i s i ss ue i n U nited Sta tes v. H im ler, 35 5 F
. 3d 73 5 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 4)
. I n H im ler, the de fen -34 N o. 10

- 3794

I n H i m l er, the courtal so not ed that the defe nd ant had pu r- 13 chas ed the c on do m ini um at an inflat ed p ri ce ( $193, 833) w hil e other s im il ar c ond om ini um s w ere se lling b etween $ 1 5 0 ,00 0 an d $1 6 0 ,00 0
. H i m l er, 355 F. 3d at 744. dant had f ra ud ule ntl y purchas ed a c ondom i niu m by te n d er in g fa lse ch ec ks to a se tt lem en t c om p an y t h at in tu rn p aid th e se ller $ 19 3,8 33
. Id. at73 7. The di str i ct cour t order ed H i m l er“to pay rest i tuti on in the am ount o f $193 , 833

— t o b e r e du c e d b y the u l t i mat e n e tp r o c e e ds f ro m the sale o fthe condom i ni um . ” Id. at 744. The Th ird C irc u it u p h eld th at aw ar d , no tin g fir s t t h at th e v ict im i n thi s ca se “ was no t a se l l er of th e co ndo m i ni um who w as re turned t o hi s o r her pre- cri m e pos i ti on upon r eobt aini ng ti tl e to th e co ndo m i ni um . Ra th er, [ th e vi ctim ] was the s et tl ementc o m pan y tha t f ac i l i ta te d the pur ch as e an d s al e be twe en[ th e se l l er ] a nd [ th e defen dant]. ” Id. A nd deedi ng the co l l ate ra l r ea l e st ate backto the set tl em ent com pany did not adequatel y com pensate the v i cti m f ori ts l oss . Id. at74 4-4 5. T h e T h ird C irc u it 13 th enno te d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t ha d c o nc ede d tha t th e sta tute r equi re s a di str i ct c ourtto “va l ue” the pro perty
“ a s o fth e d a t e th e p r o p e r t y i s r e t u r n e d ” t o th e v i c t i m. Id. at74 5. But the cour t a gr eed with t h e gov er nm ent that th e di st r i ct co ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n i n ente r i ng a restitution order th at w ou ld be r e d u ced by the fut ure p ro c ee d s fro m th e re al e st at e’s sa le. Id. In re a c h i n g t h is co nc l us i o n, the c o urt n oted th at, ha d the o ff se t amoun t b ee n d et er m in ed p rior to its sa le, t h e d efe n d an t w ou ld have b ee n l eft with a hi gh bi l l bec ause m ar ketf or cesN o. 10

- 3794 35 al l owed the condom i ni um to se l l f or $ 181, 000, wh er eas at the t i m e t i tl e t ra nsfer re d to the s ett l em ent com p an y, si mi l a r c o nd o mi ni ums we r e s e l l i ngf o r $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 to $1 60 ,00 0. Id. I n H im ler, the Th i r d Ci r c ui t s e e med t o r e l y o n the f act th atthe de fen dan t was i n ab et ter p osit i o n un derthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp ro ac h because the r eales tat e v al ues ha d i nc r ea se d b etwee n the t i m e ti tl e tr an sferred a nd th e re sa le. Id. at74 5. Obvi ousl y, we have the co nver se here , but w hat H im ler ’ s r e a s o ning i l l us t r a t e s i s tha twith flu c t u a t ing real estat e values , the on ly w ay to m easu re the t rue l oss to the vic tim i s byl oo ki ng to the actual r e s a l e p r i c e o fth e c o l l a t e r a l r e a l e s t a t e . Un d e r th e MV R A, th e ac tu all o ss i s th e appr o pr i at e m ea su r e o fr es ti tu ti o n.
b . Th e T en th C ir cu it I n U nit e d S t a t es v. Jam es , 564 F.3d 123 7 (10th C ir. 2009), the Te nth Ci r c ui ta l s o u ph e l d a r e s t i t ut i o n a wa r d that c alc u lat ed th e t ot al los s b y su b tr ac tin g th e e ve n tu al re sa le pri ce o fthe col l ate ra l rea l e state f ro m the i ni ti all oan p ro c ee d s. Id. a t 12 46

- 47
. I n Ja m es , the Tenth Cir cui t r eason ed that “[b]ecau se, in this c a s e, th e forecl osu re p r i c e me th o d mo r e c l o s e l y r e fl e c t s th e a c t u a l l o s s [ the victim ] ex p erience d , w e can not say the district cou rt’s m et h od of u sin g t h at va lu e w as u n re as on ab le or th at it o t he rw ise erred in us ing tha t valuat ion m eth od i n d eterm i ni ng the am ount o fr est i tuti on under the M VRA
. ” Id.36 N o. 10

- 3794

c. Th e Eigh th C ir cu it S i m i l ar l y, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. St at m an , 60 4 F
. 3d 529 ( 8th Cir
. 20 10) , th e E ighth Circu it up he ld th e d istri ct cou rt’s use o fthe eve ntual pro ceeds fro m a f or ecl osur e s al e a s th e o ffse t v alu e. Id. at53 8. I n that case , th e defendants h ad b een charg ed w i th wir e fra ud i n re l ati on t o a sc h em e t o p u r c h a se a b u sin es s. Id. a t 53 2. Am o ng othe r thing s , i n pu r c ha s i ngthe b us i ne s s the y a s s ume d a b on d se c u re d by rea l es ta te
. Id. at53 6. Fo llow in g t h eir convic tio n f orfra ud , atse ntenci ng defendant Rund o bj ec te d t o the g o ve r nm en t’ s m etho do l o g y f o r c al cul at i ng re st itu tio n . Id. at 537. Th en on appeal Rund ar gued th at“ th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed be ca us e th e l o ss t o [ th e vi ct i m ] sh o ul d no t ha ve be en ca l cul at ed ba se d on the al l ege d f or ecl osur e s al e pr i ce b ut [ , i nstea d, on] the asses sed va l ue o fthe proper ti es. ” Id. The co urt re j ecte d Ru nd ’ s a pp r o a c h, wh i c h, a s the Ei g hth Ci r c ui te xp l a i ne d, “w o ul d ha ve thi s co ur t us e th e appr ai se d v alue o fthe f o r e c l o s e d pr o pe r t y t o c a l c ul a t e the l o s s a mou nt, wh i ch w oul d res ulti n a l ower r est i tu ti on paym ent t o [ the v i cti m ]
. ” Id. I n rej ect i ng Rund ’ s a pp ro ach, the Eighth Ci r cu its tr es se d the o ve r ar ch i ngg o alo fthe M VRA

— m ak in g c rim e v ict im s w h ole

— and then co ncl ud ed th at“ [ u] nde r the c i r cumst an ces o fthi s ca se , the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s use o fthe f or ecl osur e s al e pr i ce pr ovi ded a f ai r and adequate r ep re senta ti on o f[ the v i cti m ’ s] l o ss a nd s at i sfi ed th e o ve r ar ch i ngg o alo fthe M VRA , to m ake [ the v i cti m ] wh ol e. ” Id. The H im ler, 355 F.3d 73 5, St at m an , 6 04 F
. 3d 52 9, a nd Ja m es , 56 4 F
. 3d 1237, deci si ons a ll s up porto ur co ncl usi onN o. 10

- 3794 37 to daytha t th e o ff se t val ue i s be stde te r m i ne d b y the m on ey ev en tu ally re c ou p ed u p on th e res ale of t h e co ll ate ra l r eal es tate. Thi s co ncl usi on i s co nsi ste nt with th e pl ain mea ni ngo fthe M VRA and al so fur th er s th e sta tutor y goal o fm aki ng the vi cti m s whole ag ai n. A cco r di ng l y, t o d ay w e j o i n the v i ew o fthe Thi r d, Ei g hth, an d T en th C irc u it s a n d h old th at th e o ffse t v alu e is th e even tu a l p roceed s recou p ed f oll ow ing a forecl osu re sal e.
B. Incl usi on of

O ther Expen di tures I n additi on t o chal l engi ng t h e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s use o f the e ventua l r esa l e pr i ce o fthe f or ecl ose d rea l es tat e a s th e o ff se t va l ue , Ro be r s al so a r g ue s o n appea l tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n i nc l udi ngv ar i o us ot he r e xpen di tu r es i n the r es ti tu ti o n a war d r el at ed to the Grant S tr eetr eales tat e. The I nl et Shor es re sti tuti on aw ar d w as base d sol el y o n the differ ence between loa n am ou n t a n d th e re sa l e a m ou n t, so th er e is n o a d d iti onali ssue ther e. But w i th the Grant St re et re al es ta te , th e res tit u tio n aw ar d ed w as b as ed on th e fo ll owing fi gure s:38 N o. 10

- 3794 C l a i m: U npaid Princi pal bal ance $140 , 478. 91 A ccr ued i nter est $ 1 3, 698. 36 A tto rneyfee s $ 1 , 400. 00 Pro pertyta xes $2, 478. 10 Other expenses $450

. 00 H azar d I nsurance $485

. 00 Pro pertypre ser vati on $736

. 54 St atuto ryDisburse m ent $1, 311. 56 Less e nd i ng es cro w bal ance ( $1, 823. 56) Tot al Cl ai m pai d: $159 , 214. 91
Addi t i o na l e xp e ns e s a ft e r MGI C t o o ko v e r o wne r s hi p: I nsurance $374

. 51 U ti l i ti es $112

. 69 Tit l e Com m i tm ent $325

. 00 Brok erpri ce o pini on $119

. 00 Clai m i nvest i gat i on co sts $715

. 00 Tot al Expenses: $1, 646. 20 R ecov ery f r om sal e: Sal es Pri ce $118 , 000. 00 Brok er ’ s co m m i ssi on ( $8, 080. 00) Pro ra ted ta xes ( $1, 724. 68) Tit l e Po l i cy ( $607

. 00) Se ttl em ent c harg es ( $679

. 39) N etPro ceeds $107, 908. 93 Tot al Loss $52, 952. 18N o. 10

- 3794 39 I n ch a lle ng ing the se li ne -i tem exp en ses, Robers m er el y a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not a dequ at ely expla i n how o r w hy the y sh oul d be i ncl ud ed. A nd then he st re sse s that co nsequenti aland in c i dental expenses ar e not re cove rabl e. The onl y speci fi c l i ne- i tem expenses , th ou g h, f or w hich he d evelop s an argu m en t are “att or ney’ s fees ” a nd “o therexpenses . ” This c ou rthas hel d that a tto rney ’ s fees expended in p ursui ng l i ti gat i on ar e n otrec ov er ab le, Sh epa rd, 269 F.3d a t 887, but th ey are re cove rabl e i ftheyr epres ent dam age t o th e property o r ar e i nc ur r ed as pa r t o fa n i nv es ti g at i o n f o r the pr o se cutio n . Scott, 4 05 F
. 3d at6 20
. Be ca us e we l ac ks uffi ci en t d e t a i l t o kn o w o n wh i c h l i ne th e s e a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s f a l l, we vacat e that por ti on o fthe re sti tution aw ar d. Si m i l ar l y, be ca us e we c anno t k no w w ha t “o th ere xpense s” mean s an d thus whether they ar e r eco ver abl e, we vacat e that p or tio n of th e re st itu tio n aw ar d as w ell. W e reject, how ever, Robers’s claim that the d istri ct cou rt did not a d equatel y e xplai n w hy i t incl ud ed the othe r mi s c e l l a ne o us e xp e nd i t ur e s i n the r e s t i t ut i o n a wa r d. A fterst ati ng tha t i t ha d r ead the parti es’ r est i tuti on m em or anda and the defense’ s o b j ec ti ons, the dist ri ct c o ur te xp l a i ne d: The t r en d i s, Ithi nk

— and the thrust ofS eve nth Ci r cui t ca se l aw, a nd the thr ea d tha t r uns i s be co m i ng stron ger i n t his fabric, i s tha t the se ex p en ses aren ’t g o i n g to be c o n s i d e r e d a s c o n s e q u e n t i a l

. . . . As the g ove rnm ent has argued, thes e a re fra ud cas es. I t was a f ra ud thatwas perpetr ate d, w hi ch r esul ted i n al l o fthes e a cti ons that had t o b e take n but f or40 N o. 10

- 3794 th e fra u d . A n d th at ’s n otp u tt in g a p er so n, a vic tim in thi s typ e o fcas e, i n a b ett erpl ace. I t’ s putti ng a vi ct i m b ac kwher e th e vi ct i m ne ve r s ho ul d hav e g o ne and neverwould have been but f ort h e condu ct that w as conducted by the defe nd ant.
. . . A nd Ideem i t t o be the c as e i n thi s ca se , a s Ide emed i t to be i n the B ra d ley H ollis te r c as e. . . . s o c on sis te n t w ith th e log ic of it, Ithi nktha t th e l o g i c i s o ve r whel m i ng, tha t th e fraud w as c o m m it ted

. Th e victim i s ow ed , and he’s owed the d ire ct e xpenses

— I ’ l l c al l the m di r ec t ex pens es thatfl ow fr om the f ra ud thatwould not have ex isted or not there

— neverwould have been ther e. Rober s be l i eve s that thi s di scussi on i s insuffi ci ent, ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. H os ki ng, 567 F.3d 329 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ), w h er ein th e g ov er n m e n t p re se n te d on ly a sin gle do cumentwi thg en er aland v ague de sc r i pti o ns o fthe vic tim ’s c os ts
. Id. a t 33 3. Butthe prob lem i n H os ki ng w as that th e d istr i ct c ourtf ound that the co sts were not appr o pr i at el y inc l ude d i n r es ti tu ti o n o r dera nd the n, r athe r tha n de te r m i ne th e appr o pr i at e amoun t o fr es ti tu
tio n, m er ely cu t t h e c laim ed co st s in h alf. Id. at 334. Con versely, he re the on ly c om p one nt of th e aw ard that i s uncl eari s the “o therexpenses ” ca teg or y, wh i ch w e hav e v acat ed. A nd we re j ec t Rober s’ s a rgum ent that th e rem aind er oft h e restitution order w as no t suffi c i e nt l y e xp l a i ne d. A s no ted, o therthan hi s chal l enge to “att or ney’ s fees ” an d “o th e r e x p en se s,” R ob er s d oe s n otch alle n ge ind ivi dual l y the o th erl i ne - i te m e xpe ns es , mer el y s ta ting that they ar e a l l co nsequenti alo r i nc i dental expenses th atc anno t be r ec o ve r ed. W e ha ve hel d tha t co n-N o. 10

- 3794 41

se q u en tia l or in c id en ta l e x p en se s a re n otco m p en sa b le u n d er th e M V R A
. Sh epa rd, 269 F. 3d at 887 ( “Both § 36 63A and i ts predeces sor§ 3663 have bee n un d er sto od to re quir e r est i tuti on o nl y fordi re ct los ses and not f or conse quenti aldam age s a nd the othe r effects thatm ay rip p le t h ro u gh th e e c on om y.” ); U nite d State s v. A rvanitis , 902 F. 2d 489, 49 7 ( 7th Cir
. 1990 ) ( “I n the c ase o fr est i tuti on f o r o ffe ns e s r e s ul t i ngi n the l o s s o fp ro perty, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 663(b) l i m i ts re cove ryto pro pertywh i ch is th e subj ect o fthe o ffen se , thereb y makingr es ti tu ti o n f o r c o nseq ue nt ialda m ages, su ch a s a ttorn eys fees, un available. ”). Butwe ha ve a l so e xpl aine d tha t th e “di r ec t” v er su s “co nsequenti aland inci dental ” dem ar cati on i s no t e x a c tly h elp fu l. U nite d State s v. Scott, 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 6 1 5 , 62 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Rather, th e bett erquesti on i s whether the inj ury i s t o “pro perty, ” which i s r eco verab l e under th e M V R A , or ot h er loss es , w h ich are n ot
. Id. 61 9- 20. I n Scott, we ex pl aine d th i s pr i nc i pl e, w hile h o l di ng th ata n o r dero fr es ti tu ti o n a ppr o pr i at el y i nclud ed the c os t o f an au d it: The audit expense, though a l oss to S cot t’ s e m plo yer s, w as not a g ai n to hi m . But i t was a f or m of d am age to the [ vi cti m - ] em plo yer s’ pro perty
. S up p ose m oney wa s s t o l en fr o m a b a nka nd e v e ntua l l y r e t urne d, but th e ba nki nc ur r ed a bo o k k ee pi ngc o sti n de te r m i ni ng wh ether th e enti re am ount s tol en had bee n re tu r ne d. Tha t cost w ou ld be a di m i nut i o n i n the v al ue o fthe b an k ’s pr o per ty, c au se d b y the the ft, a nd w oul d ther ef or e be a properi tem f orr est i tu tio n . S ee U ni t e d St at e s v. D onab y, 3 49 F.3d 10 46, 1051-54 (7th C ir.42 N o. 10

- 3794 20 03 ); U nited Sta tes v. R ho des, 33 0 F. 3d 949, 95 3- 54 ( 7th C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haywar d, 35 9 F
. 3d 631, 64 2 ( 3d Cir

. 20 04)
. Thi s ca se i s no di ffer ent. Id. at61 9. Lik e Sc o tt, w e co ncl ud e in thi s ca se that the r em ai nd er ofthe l i ne- i tem expenses f al l o n the i nj ury- to- proper ty side of th e l in e . Th e prop erty d am aged by Rob ers’s f ra ud was capi taland to r eco up thatca p ita l, Fanni e M ae and then M GIC had t o i ncur num er ous e xpenses t o sa fe g ua r d, k e e p up , a nd di s po s e o fthe c o l l a t e r a l that se c u re d th e loa n . T h e o n l y w ay M G IC w as ab le t o re ga in i ts capi tal at the end of the day, at the val u e it reco ver ed on r esa l e, was by expend i ng ca sh up f ro nt. Fo r i nstance , i fr eales tat e t axes w er e no t cur re nt, the buyer ’ s o ffer w oul d be l ower byan e qual am ou nt. I fti tl e insurance wer e no t pr o vi ded, the pur ch as e woul d b e riski era nd the b uyerwould be onl y wil l i ng to purchase ata l ower pri ce. I fa re al torwere not hi re d, the pr oper ty w oul d not be m ar keted as effecti vel y, ag ai n l eadi ng to a l ower am ou n t. A n d m ain te n ance a nd uti l i ti es expenses pr es er ve d the c o l l at er al, and ins ur an ce s afegua r ded th e co l l at er alwhi l e th e vi ct i m a ttem pte d t o mit i g at e th e dam age to i ts proper ty. I n other w or ds, the am ounts expend ed by the v i cti m to ac hi eve the fi nal di sposi ti on ofthe col l ate ra l r eales tat e were i ncurr ed so lel y t o re c tify , to th e e x te n t p os sib le, th e d am ag e t o t h e c ap ita l. The se e xpe ns es a r e di r ec tly r el at ed to Rob er s’ s f r au dN o. 10

- 3794 43

The E igh th Ci rc ui ti n U n i te d S tat es v. A l exan der, 679 F. 3d 721 14 ( 8th Cir

. 2012) , uph el d a rest itution award to H U D that i nc l uded f or ec l os ur e ex pen s es . The c our ti n A l exan der, though, he l d t hatf or ec l os ur e ex pen s es wer e re c ove rabl e underthe M V R A because H U D w as a vict im o f the cr im e and “w as re s pons ibl e f or m aki ng s uc h a paym en t to the l en der bas ed o n its g uarantee ofthe m ortgage l oan. ” Id. H ow ev er, in the ca se b efor e us , the gove rn m en t s ee ks re s t i t ut i on t o M GIC, notas a v ictim , b u t be cau se it is sub ro g ated to the lend er’s inter est p u rsu an t to 1 8 U .S. C
. § 36 64 (j )( 1). B eing sub ro g ated to F an nie M a e ’ s i nt e r e s t, the n, m e a ns tha tMG I C s t e ps i nt o the s hoes of F an nie M ae and can no t reco v er m erely b eca u se it p a id F a n n ie M a e ’s i n s u ra n ce cla im
. S ee Shepa rd, 269 F. 3d at 887. T h u s, A l exan der ’ s a na l ys i s i s i na ppl i c a bl e a nd , a s we h a ve done abo ve, we ha ve f oc us ed i ns t ea d on the r es t i t ut i on due to M G IC not as an i nsurer, but as ifi t were the l ender. an d are thu s recovera ble. A c c o r d ingly, w e affirm 14 th e rest itu tion aw ard , other th an the aw ard f or attorne y’s fee s an d “ o th ere xpe ns es , ” whi chwe va ca te , a nd w e rem an d for en tr y of j u d gm en t con sis te n t w it h t h is o pi ni o n.

I I I . Concl usio n Ro be r s’ s f r au d de pr i ve d hi s vi ct i m s o fc as h. Underthe M VRA , re sti tuti on of the pr oper ty sto l en

— here cas h

— w as m andator y. Because c ash was st ol en and cas h w as not r etur ne d t o the v i ct i m s unt i l the co l l at er als ec ur i ng the fra u d ule nt l oans w as sol d, und erthe pla i n l anguage ofthe M VRA the value ofthe proper ty re turned o n the date o fi ts re turn i s the am ount o fcas h re c ov er ed at44 N o. 10

- 3794 t he t i me th e f o r e c l o s e d r e a l e s t a t e w a s e v e n t u a l l y r e s o l d. Ina st a gn an t, d ec lin in g m ar ke t, h ou se va lu es w ill d ec re as e a n d th is re d u c t i o n i n va lu e o f th e re al e st at e is a r i sk that f al ls on R obe rs , the one w ho defra ud ed th e vi ct i m s. The l o ss i n v alue o fthe r ea l e stat e an d the v a r i o u s l i n e - i t e m e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d b y th e v i c t i ms w hi l e a tte m pti ng to co nver t the co llat er albac k t o cash ar e dir ectl y caused by Rober s’ s f ra ud and c on stitute re c ov erabl e dam age s t o hi s pro perty
. A tto rney ’ s fees f or c olle c tin g a d eb t, th ou gh , are n otp r op er ly re c ov er ab le und erthe M VRA and “o therex p enses ” m ay not be. A ccor dingl y, w e vacat e that port i on of th e resti tuti on aw ar d. For these r eas ons, we A FFIRM I N P ART, V ACATE IN P ART, a nd R EMA ND to the d istri ct cou rt forentry of a r es ti tu ti o n o r derc o ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

9- 14- 12