Opinion ID: 779834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Erred in Ordering Restitution in the Amount of the Defendant's Gain Rather than the Amount of the Victims' Loss

Text: Federal courts have no inherent power to order restitution, which is traditionally a civil remedy. See United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 127, 137 (2d Cir. 2006). A sentencing court's power to order restitution, therefore, depends upon, and is necessarily circumscribed by, statute. See United States v. Elkin, 731 F.2d 1005, 1010-11 (2d Cir.1984), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1474-75 (2d Cir.1995). In this case, the relevant statute is the MVRA. As relevant here, the MVRA applies to an offense against property under this title, ... including any offense committed by fraud or deceit, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a ... pecuniary loss, id. § 3663A(c)(1)(B). In such a case, a sentencing court shall order, in addition to ... any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense. Id. § 3663A(a)(1).