Opinion ID: 47769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Calculation of Restitution

Text: 5 Lee alleges that the district court erred in ordering restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for the total amount of disbursements he received starting in 1996, instead of limiting the amount to the disbursements traceable to the offenses alleged in the indictment. We review challenges to the legality of an award under the MVRA de novo and then determine whether the district court abused its discretion in calculating the amount awarded. United States v. Adams, 363 F.3d 363, 365 (5th Cir. 2004). Lee’s claim is meritless. In order to convict Lee of the mail fraud counts, the Government necessarily proved a scheme to defraud in addition to the specific fraudulent misrepresentations he made on the OWCP forms alleged in the indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1341. “[W]here a fraudulent scheme is an element of the conviction, the court may award restitution for ‘actions pursuant to that scheme.’” United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 289 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Stouffer, 986 F.2d 916, 928 (5th Cir. 1993)). The temporal scope of the criminal behavior and the specific acts charged in the indictment define the parameters of the fraudulent scheme for purposes of determining restitution under the MVRA. See Cothran, 302 F.3d at 288. Count One of the indictment states that “[o]n or about April 6, 1994, the Defendant . . . made material false and fraudulent misrepresentations that [the Defendant’s] Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was the result of having been held captive as a prisoner of war in Iraq in 1991.” 6 The indictment’s description of the fraudulent scheme charged empowered the district court to include the total amount of OWCP disbursements paid as a result of the erroneous diagnosis of total disability that Lee procured through fraudulent misrepresentations. In so doing, the district court adopted the recommendations contained in Lee’s PSR, which, under U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, determined that Lee’s willful misrepresentations to the OWCP began on April 13, 1994, and that the appropriate measure of restitution was the total loss incurred from that date, namely, $229,429.89. The jury, conversely, rendered a forfeiture verdict of $165,997.50, which only accounts for disbursements made in response to the fraudulent misrepresentations alleged as overt acts in the indictment. But, according to the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the court, not the jury, ultimately determines the amount of restitution appropriate to the offense. In awarding restitution for the total amount of the disbursements Lee procured in the course of his fraudulent conduct, the court did not act contrary to law or abuse its discretion.