Opinion ID: 220729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Repayment of misapplied funds

Text: Parisi next argues that the district court failed to consider amounts that were misapplied but subsequently repaid. As before, our review is for abuse of discretion. Parisi argues that some of the moneys that were transferred from the federal grants into the Tribe's general accounts were subsequently repaid by the Tribe. Therefore, it was error to base the restitution order on the initial quantity transferred rather than the amount net repayments. Parisi argues that the restitution order grossly exaggerates the actual losses, and notes that restitution must be gauged by actual loss to the victim, United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir.2007), and that the burden is on the government to establish the amount of the loss. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). Unfortunately, Parisi fails to provide any details about the alleged repayments. He fails to specify to whom the payments were made, who they were made by, when they were made, or how much was repaid. At sentencing, the district court heard from the parties as to whether those Tribe members whose retirement accounts had been affected by the misuse of earmarked money had been compensated, and that the government conceded that five or six such individuals had in fact been repaid. Neither party put forward a specific dollar amount that had been repaid. [33] The MVRA stipulates that [a]ny dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). As it does not appear that Parisi disputed the inclusion of allegedly repaid amounts in the PSR or at sentencing, we do not discern any abuse of discretion on this score.