Opinion ID: 1446782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss Calculation Restitution

Text: We review the amount of a restitution award for abuse of discretion. United States v. Adams, 214 F.3d 724, 730 (6th Cir.2000); Wood, 364 F.3d at 714 (citation omitted). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1) directs the district court to order that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense. The government bears the burden to demonstrate the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense. Id. at § 3664(e). Where proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the statute provides for restitution to each victim in the full amount of [their] losses. Id. at §§ 3664(e), 3664(f)(1)(A). Thus, the loss caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction establishes the outer limits of a restitution order. Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 420, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990); see also United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 418 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Rothwell, 387 F.3d 579, 585 (6th Cir.2004). As previously noted, the government concedes on appeal that the loss amount proposed and adopted by the district court was in error and, instead of the $7,290,202 figure employed by the district court, now claims the correct loss amount should have been $6,754,885. The district court's restitution order therefore relied upon a fact that the government now admits was clear error. Because it was based on clearly erroneous facts, and because a restitution award may not exceed the loss caused by the conduct underlying the offense, see Hughey, 495 U.S. at 420, 110 S.Ct. 1979, we also find the district court abused its discretion in determining the amount of restitution.