Opinion ID: 628513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Limit to Counts of Conviction.

Text: 15 Linberg argues that the district court improperly included losses attributable to his check-kiting scheme in its restitution order. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663(a)(3), effective November 29, 1990, provides that [t]he court may also order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement. Linberg argues that the provision is inapplicable, because it was enacted after his offenses were completed. 16 In United States v. Soderling, 970 F.2d 529, 534 n. 9 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2446 (1993), we stated that [s]ection 3663(a)(3) may even serve to validate some plea agreements relating to offenses occurring before November 29, 1990, so long as the plea agreement was entered after November 29, 1990. This is the position adopted by the Fifth Circuit. See United States v. Arnold, 947 F.2d 1236, 1238 n. 2 (5th Cir.1991). The application of section 3663(a)(3) does not violate the ex post facto clause when applied to situations in which the plea agreement was entered into after subsection (a)(3)'s effective date. Under section 3663(a)(3), the district court correctly ordered restitution in the amount specified in the plea agreement. 17