Opinion ID: 803126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meredith

Text: Meredith raises various challenges to her restitution order. None of them require us to vacate her restitution order. First, Meredith claims that the requirements to pay both back taxes and restitution constitutes “unlawful ‘double recovery.’ ” Meredith cites no authority for this argument. Moreover, the court’s judgment explicitly provides that any 7554 UNITED STATES v. MEREDITH restitution payments are credited toward Meredith’s back tax obligations. Next, Meredith claims that the restitution order is “impermissibly based on ‘relevant conduct’ rather than based on the amounts for the years of conviction, charged in the indictment.” Meredith cites no support for this argument. Indeed, we have held that restitution orders can include losses caused by related conduct for which the defendant was not convicted. See United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007). [16] Meredith also contends that her restitution orders should be vacated because the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, does not apply to Title 26 income tax-related offenses. Meredith is correct that the MVRA does not apply to Title 26 income tax offenses, but it does apply the Section 371 conspiracy offenses. See United States v. Kubick, 205 F.3d 1117, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, this challenge fails.