Opinion ID: 3066058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restitution’s Triggers

Text: To impose restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), there must be a showing that “an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(B).1 The district judge found there was a victim and that “[t]echnically . . . there [was] a loss in terms of the bribery figure amount.”2 So did the Presentence Investigation Report. But the jury never had a chance to make these findings, as there was no special verdict. Nor do the convictions necessarily imply a victim or a loss. For example, the FCPA jury instructions allowed for a conviction if the jury found the Greens had acted “corruptly” in making a payment to a foreign official “for the purpose of . . . securing any improper advantage.” As the Greens argue, the FCPA convictions would be “consistent 1 The parties dispute whether restitution was ordered under the MVRA or the Victim and W itness Protection Act (VW PA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663. But both statutes require a finding that there was a victim who suffered a loss, so the Apprendi question is in play either way. 2 The Greens didn’t raise an Apprendi objection to these findings or the restitution order. The government argues we should review for plain error. W e decline to do so because the legal issues in this case fall within the exceptions to plain error review described by United States v. Saavedra-Velazquez, 578 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 UNITED STATES V . GREEN with findings that the payments were investments” or “bribes drawn from the Greens’ own profits.” Nor do the Greens’ other convictions require finding a victim or a pecuniary loss.3 Because the findings triggering restitution weren’t made by the jury, we must decide whether Apprendi applies.