Opinion ID: 6337651
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The MVRA and Standard of Review

Text: “The [MVRA] provides, in pertinent part, that when sentencing a defendant convicted of certain designated offenses, the court shall order, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant shall make restitution to the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.” United States v. Benally, 19 F.4th 1250, 1256 (10th Cir. 2021) (ellipsis and quotations omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). “[R]estitution [is] mandatory for any offense against property under Title 1 The district court imposed the restitution award jointly and severally against Mr. Dodson and Mr. Thomas. 4 Appellate Case: 21-7046 Document: 010110679525 Date Filed: 05/04/2022 Page: 5 18 of the United States Code in which an identifiable victim has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.” United States v. Butler, 694 F.3d 1177, 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)). “We review the legality of a restitution order de novo, the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and the amount of restitution for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Anthony, 22 F.4th 943, 950 (10th Cir. 2022) (quotations omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion if it orders a restitution amount based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quotations omitted).