Opinion ID: 6337651
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MVRA’s Complexity Exception

Text: The MVRA authorizes the district court to forego restitution for certain offenses, including property offenses, if “determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim’s losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(B). Mr. Dodson invoked the MVRA’s complexity exception in district court and the court rejected it. We perceive no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Zangari, 677 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that the district court may invoke the complexity exception “in the exercise of its sound discretion”). Despite Mr. Dodson’s characterization of this case as a “factual quagmire” that “no court could ever sort out,” Aplt. Br. at 23, 27, the district court did sort out the facts and ably performed the restitution analysis. It excluded personal property losses caused by events preceding Mr. Dodson’s September 16 arson. It limited restitution to the arson’s impact on the structure of the home, which was a total loss with a discernable replacement value. The factual issues in this case were not so complex as to “bog down a sentencing proceeding” or “embroil[ ] [a district court] in intricate issues of proof.” United States v. Malone, 747 F.3d 481, 486, 487 (7th Cir. 2014). The district court’s to value Dr. Miller’s home, or (2) clearly erred in finding that the cost of rebuilding the home would be $384,158.29. 7 Appellate Case: 21-7046 Document: 010110679525 Date Filed: 05/04/2022 Page: 8 denial of Mr. Dodson’s request to apply the MVRA’s complexity exception was not an abuse of discretion.