Opinion ID: 513241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Restitution to Particular Victims

Text: 29 Angelica argues that the restitution order improperly included losses by victims as to whom no conviction was had. Appellant's Brief at 49 (quoting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3651). Angelica points out that, although he was indicted and convicted of making fraudulent representations via mail and wire to seven of the fifteen victim-witnesses, the district court took into account the losses of all fifteen victim-witnesses in setting the amount of restitution. 30 Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3579(a)(1), the district court is authorized to order that the defendant make restitution to any victim of the offense. We have held that when the crime charged involves a scheme to defraud, a sentencing court may order restitution [pursuant to Sec. 3579] paid to victims of the entire scheme even though all of them are not named in the indictment or information. United States v. Pomazi, 851 F.2d 244, 250 (9th Cir.1988). We require that (1) the amount must be definite and not in excess of what the victims actually lost; (2) the court must be able positively to identify each victim; and (3) the amount of restitution must be judicially established, with the defendant afforded an opportunity to refute the amount ordered. Id. 31 Here, Angelica's indictment described a fraudulent scheme of considerable magnitude, with multiple victims. The proof at trial established that fifteen specific victims lost diamonds purchased for a total in excess of $450,000. Each of these victims testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination on his or her alleged losses, and defense counsel had an opportunity to object to the restitution order at sentencing. 4 The trial court did not err in basing the restitution order on victims not charged in the indictment. 32 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.