Opinion ID: 1356579
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Restitution Ordered by the District Court

Text: Rossi argues also that the District Court erred in determining the amount of restitution imposed. We review restitution orders for abuse of discretion, see, e.g., United States v. Kinlock, 174 F.3d 297, 299 (2d Cir.1999); cf. Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (A district court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted)), and factual findings underlying a restitution order for clear error, see, e.g., In re Rendón Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir.2009). Our review of all VWPA cases, such as this one, is extremely deferential, United States v. Giwah, 84 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir.1996), because ordering restitution requires a delicate balancing of diverse, sometimes incomparable[,] factors, some of which not only lack certainty but may indeed be based on mere probabilities, expectations, guesswork, even a `hunch,' United States v. Atkinson, 788 F.2d 900, 902 (2d Cir.1986). The sentencing court is in the best position to engage in such balancing and therefore it makes little sense for an appellate court, significantly more removed from the case than the district court, to scrutinize the decision closely. United States v. Porter, 90 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir.1996). In ordering restitution, Judge Cote was cautious and restrained, noting, with respect to one of the claimed losses, that even though she thought it was extraordinarily likely that most of this was a loss attributed to the [defendant's] conspiracy, she would not attribute that loss to defendant. App. 139 (Hr'g Tr. Dec. 11, 2008). Judge Cote explained, I'd be speculating and choosing numbers and I'm not going to do that. Id. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the government produced sufficient evidence to support Judge Cote's restitution order. We cannot conclude that the District Court erred, much less abused its discretion, in imposing the restitution amount that it did. We have considered each of Rossi's arguments on this appeal and find them to be without merit.