Opinion ID: 808490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seventh Circuit precedent

Text: Our holding is consistent with this circuit’s previous decisions reached in non-precedential orders. In United States v. Cage, 365 Fed. App’x 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2010), this court stated: The restitution amount proposed by the government and adopted by the court at sentencing was the amount in mortgage loans that Cage helped to fraudulently secure less the amount the lenders recovered through the sale of the fraudulently purchased properties. This was a proper way to calculate the amount of restitution [] owed . . . . 7 If a district court had entered a restitution order based on the estimated fair market value of the real estate prior to resale and the eventual sales proceeds ended up higher, a defendant could come back to court and request that the restitution award be reduced. Rather than speculate and then later adjust the restitution award, we believe the better approach is to do what, according to the government, the Eastern District of Wisconsin does: If the collateral real estate has not been sold by the time of sentencing, the court enters a restitution award for the total loss to the victims and once the real estate is sold, the court modifies the restitution award based on the cash proceeds. No. 10-3794 17 And in United States v. Bates, 134 Fed. App’x 955 (7th Cir. 2005), we explained the difference between the property stolen (cash) and the property returned (real estate collateral) stating: Bates insists that Coldwell did not suffer any compensable loss because it ended up with the residence, and that the “loss” claimed by the realtor in fact consists of unrecoverable “incidental and consequential damages” and “lost profits.” Bates, though, did not take a house from Coldwell; she caused the realtor to lose cash, but cash is not what was “returned” to Coldwell. Coldwell as- sumed temporary ownership of the residence only as a means of mitigating Bates’s fraud, and so long as Coldwell possessed a residence it did not want instead of the funds Bates caused it to expend, the realtor was not made whole—Bates’s fraud placed Coldwell in the position of real estate seller rather than realtor. Id. at 958. These Seventh Circuit decisions, though, as noted, are non-precedential.8 The other circuits are split on the 8 In United States v. Shepard, 269 F.3d 884, 888 (7th Cir. 2001), this court also considered the question of the appropriate amount of offset, but Shepard is distinguishable from the case at hand. In Shepard, the defendant argued that “he and his wife ‘returned’ about $12,000 of the [stolen] $92,000 by using it to make improvements in [the victim’s] home.” Id. at 887. We noted that “to the extent improvements increased the (continued...) 18 No. 10-3794 appropriate offset amount to use in calculating restitution.9 In a series of cases, the Ninth Circuit has held 8 (...continued) market value of [the victim’s] house, and thus were (or could have been) realized by [the victim’s] estate in selling the property, the funds were ‘returned’ for statutory purposes.” Id. We continued: “It is no different in principle from taking the money from one of [the victim’s] bank accounts and depositing it in another a week later. So long as [the victim] regained beneficial use of the property, it has been ‘returned’ as § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(ii) uses that term.” Id. at 887-88. In Shepard, though, the government did not contend that the “the change of the property’s form—from cash to, say, central air conditioning—precludes a conclusion that the property has been ‘returned.’ ” Id. at 888. Moreover, in Shepard, the victim was using and benefitting from the home improvements, whereas in this case, the victims were not using the collateral, but were merely attempting to sell the collateral to recoup their stolen property—cash. Finally, while Shepard remanded the case for determination of “the amount by which improvements enhanced the market value of the house,” there was no discussion concerning the appropriate time for this valuation, i.e., upon resale of the house or at the time the home improvements were made. Id. Thus, Shepard does not answer the question before us. 9 The following cases interpret both the MVRA and its predecessor, the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”). Unlike the MVRA, the VWPA required courts to consider the economic circumstances of the defendant prior to ordering restitution, and the granting of restitution was discretionary, not mandatory. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663. “With (continued...) No. 10-3794 19 that the offset amount is the fair market value of the collateral real estate at the date of foreclosure when the victim-lender took title and could have sold it for cash. See United States v. Smith, 944 F.2d 618, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchison, 22 F.3d 846, 856 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Catherine, 55 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Davoudi, 172 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999); United States v. Gossi, 608 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594, 605 (9th Cir. 2012). The Second and Fifth Circuits have similarly held that in a mortgage fraud case, the restitution offset is based on the fair market value of the collateral at the time it is returned to the victim. See United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Holley, 23 F.3d 902, 915 (5th Cir. 1994). Conversely, the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held that it is proper to base the offset value on the eventual amount recouped by the victim following sale of the collateral real estate. See United States v. Himler, 355 F.3d 735, 745 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Statman, 604 F.3d 529, 538 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 2009). 9 (...continued) these exceptions, the two statutes are identical in all important respects, and courts interpreting the MVRA may look to and rely on cases interpreting the VWPA as precedent.” See United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 No. 10-3794 4. Circuits holding that the offset value is determined based on the estimated fair market value of the collateral securing the loans at the date of foreclosure when title is transferred to the lender Our conclusion conflicts with the view of the Ninth, Fifth, and Second Circuits. As noted above, those courts all held that the offset amount is the estimated fair market value of the collateral at the date of foreclosure. In reaching this conclusion, the courts all purported to rely on the plain language of the MVRA, stressing that under the MVRA, courts are to reduce the restitution award by “the value (as of the date the property is returned).” But none of those cases actually addressed the question of what constitutes “the property” under the statute. And their conclusions are based on the courts improperly treating the collateral recovered as the property stolen.
Examining the development of the case law in the Ninth Circuit illuminates this omission. Smith was the first of the cases to consider the appropriate offset in a similar situation—where the victim lent cash based on the defendant’s fraud and eventually foreclosed on the real estate securing the loan. Smith, 944 F.2d at 620-21. In Smith, the defendant asserted “that the district court failed to give him adequate credit against the restitution amount for the value of the collateral property,” arguing that the court should have used the value of the No. 10-3794 21 real estate at the time the victims regained title to the property. Id. at 625. Smith alleged “that because the value of Texas real estate steadily declined throughout the time in question, the measurement of the property’s value at the later dates resulted in an inadequate credit for the collateral property, and that therefore the restitution figure is far too high.” Id. The Ninth Circuit agreed with defendant Smith. And Smith serves as the linchpin for further cases. Because the court went astray in Smith by applying language in the much different property restitution case (Tyler), we quote its reasoning in full: We agree with Smith that the district court used incorrect dates in valuing the property. The Act provides that if a victim has suffered a loss of property, the district court may order restitution in the amount of this loss “less the value (as of the date the property is returned ) of any part of the property that is returned.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1) (emphasis added). We interpreted this portion of the Act in United States v. Tyler, 767 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985) (Tyler), in which Tyler pled guilty to theft of timber and was ordered to pay restitution under the Act. The district court determined the amount of restitution as the difference between the value of the timber at the time of sentencing and the higher value at the time of theft. Id. at 1351. Because the government recovered the timber on the day of the theft, however, we concluded that “[a]ny reduction in its value stems from the government’s decision to hold the timber during a period of declining prices, not 22 No. 10-3794 from Tyler’s criminal acts.” Id. at 1352. The value of the property “ ‘as of the date the property [was] returned’ ” equaled the amount lost when the timber was stolen, and therefore restitution under the Act was inappropriate. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3579, which was subsequently renumbered as 18 U.S.C. § 3663). The same reasoning should apply in determining the value of the collateral property in this case. Smith should receive credit against the restitution amount for the value of the collateral property as of the date title to the property was transferred to either Savings & Loan or Gibraltar. As of that date, the new owner had the power to dispose of the property and receive compensation. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(e)(1) (restitution may be ordered for any person who has compensated a victim). Value should therefore be measured by what the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date. Any reduction in value after Smith lost title to the property stems from a decision by the new owners to hold on to the property; to make Smith pay restitution for that business loss is improper. See Tyler, 767 F.2d at 1352. The victims in this case “receive[d] compensation” when they received title to the property and the corresponding ability to sell it for cash; the value of the compensation should therefore be measured and deducted from the total loss figure as of the date title was transferred. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(e)(1). Because the law is clear, to do otherwise would be an abuse of discretion. Id. at 625-26. No. 10-3794 23 There are several flaws in Smith’s reasoning. First, Smith quoted, with emphasis, the “less the value (as of the date the property is returned)” language from the MVRA, but ignored the fact that the property returned was not the property stolen. See Smith, 944 F.2d at 63132 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting) (explaining that the majority “erroneously treats the five collateral properties as if they are somehow equivalent to the stolen capital,” but “[w]hat Smith stole was capital, and to restore his victims to the status quo ante, he must return the present value of that capital.”). Second, and relatedly, the Ninth Circuit in Smith relied heavily on its decision in Tyler to support its reasoning, but Smith’s reliance on Tyler was misplaced because in Tyler, the defendant was charged with theft of government timber and the exact same property (i.e., the timber) was recovered on the very day of the theft. Thus, Tyler does not support the view that “the property” in the MVRA means any property returned, as opposed to the property stolen. See Smith, 944 F.2d at 632 (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting) (“Nor does our decision in United States v. Tyler, 767 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985), upon which both the majority and Smith rely, support the court’s holding. See ante at 624-25. A defrauded lender’s assumption of title over collateral property that is itself part of the fraud is in no way analogous to a timber owner’s recovery of stolen timber.”) Third, Smith reasoned that as of the date the victim received title to the collateral, the new owner had the power to dispose of the real estate and receive compensation, and accordingly the value of the real estate should be based on the amount 24 No. 10-3794 the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date. This reasoning ignores the reality that real property is not liquid and, absent a huge price discount, cannot be sold immediately. Fourth and finally, the court in Smith unreasonably assumed that any reduction “after Smith lost title to the property stems from a decision by the new owners to hold on to the prop- erty.” Smith, 944 F.2d at 625. This rationale also incorrectly assumes that real estate is liquid—which it is not. We say all of this because the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Smith served as the keystone for all of the subsequent decisions holding that the offset value is the fair market value of the collateral real estate on the date the title to the collateral reverted to the victim. For instance, in United States v. Hutchinson, 22 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1993), the defendant challenged the district court’s use of the final sales price as the offset value. Based on Smith, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the appropriate offset was the value of the collateral at the time the bank gained control of the real estate. Similarly, in United States v. Catherine, 55 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1995), the defendant argued that the district court should have valued the real estate for offset purposes at the time the victim foreclosed on the collateral real estate, and the Ninth Circuit stated: “We decided this exact issue in Hutchinson, id. at 854-56, which in turn, relied on United States v. Smith.” Id. at 1465. The court in Catherine then followed these precedents and reversed and remanded the case for the district court to value the collateral at the time the bank received title. Id. And in United States v. Davoudi, 172 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 1999), No. 10-3794 25 the Ninth Circuit again held that the district court erred in basing its offset valuation on the eventual sales price of the collateral. Davoudi parroted Smith’s reasoning and cited Smith, Catherine, and Hutchinson. Then in United States v. Gossi, 608 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit relied on Davoudi, to conclude: “Under this Court’s precedent, the district court reasonably found that [the victim] had the power to dispose of the property at the time it took control of the property at foreclosure. ‘Value should therefore be measured by what the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date.’ ” Id. at 578 (quoting Smith, 944 F.2d at 625). The final and most recent decision from the Ninth Circuit is United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2012). In Yeung, the court considered the propriety of several restitution orders to financial institutions which suffered losses following a fraudulent real estate scheme and stated: Using the framework set forth in § 3663A(b), we have developed some guidelines for calculating the restitution amount in a case involving a defendant’s fraudulent scheme to obtain secured real estate loans from lenders. Generally, district courts calculating a direct lender’s loss in this context begin by determining the amount of the unpaid principal balance due on the fraudulent loan, less the value of the real property collateral as of the date the direct lender took control of the property. United States v. Hutchison, 22 F.3d 846, 856 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Smith, 944 F.2d 618, 625-26 (9th Cir. 1991) 26 No. 10-3794 (construing the VWPA). Because restitution should address a victim’s “actual losses,” see Smith, 944 F.2d at 626, we have approved restitution awards that included other amounts in the calculation of loss, such as prejudgment interest (using the govern- mental loan rate), id., interest still due on the loan, Davoudi, 172 F.3d at 1136, and expenses associated with holding the real estate collateral that were incurred by the lender before it took title to the property, Hutchison, 22 F.3d at 856. To calculate the value of the real property collateral “as of the date the property is returned,” § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(ii), courts use the value of the collateral “as of the date the victim took control of the property,” Davoudi, 172 F.3d at 1134. The lender does not take control of the collateral merely by triggering the foreclosure process. See United States v. Gossi, 608 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, the lender generally takes control on the date the lender either (1) receives the net proceeds from the sale of the collateral to a third party at the foreclosure sale, see United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237, 1246 (10th Cir. 2009), or (2) takes title to the real estate collateral at the foreclosure sale, at which time “the new owner had the power to dispose of the property and receive compensation,” see Smith, 944 F.2d at 625. The direct lender’s losses may also be reduced by amounts recouped from resale of the loan or from other types of “return” of property. See, e.g., Hutchison, 22 F.3d at 856. Id. at 601. No. 10-3794 27 On the basis of this precedent, the Ninth Circuit in Yeung then reversed the district court’s restitution awards, which were based on the subsequent sales price of the real estate, and remanded to the district court.1 0 As the above excerpt from Yeung makes clear, its holding was based on the well-established precedent that flowed from Smith. And as discussed above, none of those cases addressed the fundamental distinction between the property stolen (cash) and the property recovered (real estate). Like its predecessors, Yeung did not recognize that the Smith decision relied on Tyler, which was factually distinguishable from all of the 10 Yeung also held that “when a victim purchased a loan in the secondary market, that is, where the victim is the loan purchaser as opposed to the loan originator . . . the value of that loan is not necessarily its unpaid principal balance, but may vary with the value of the collateral, the credit rating of the borrower, market conditions, or other factors, [and thus] the loan purchaser may have purchased the loan for less than its unpaid principal balance.” Yeung, 672 F.3d at 601-02. The Ninth Circuit in Yeung then remanded the case to the district court to recalculate the restitution award. Robers filed Yeung as supplemental authority and argued that, as in Yeung, remand is required to determine the price at which the loans were purchased in the secondary market. Robers, however, had never previously argued (either before the district court or in briefing or at oral argument) that the restitution award was improperly based on the outstanding principal balance, as opposed to some potentially lower amount paid for the loans in the secondary market. Therefore, he has waived these issues. 28 No. 10-3794 cases at hand because Tyler involved a case where the property the defendant was charged with stealing was the same as the property returned to the victim (timber) and the theft and return happened on the same day.
The Smith decision has likewise served as the basis for other circuits holding that the offset value is the value of the collateral at the time of foreclosure. In United States v. Holley, 23 F.3d 902, 915 (5th Cir. 1994), the Fifth Circuit, like the Ninth Circuit, held that the offset value should be based on the fair market value on the date of foreclosure. In coming to this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit first stated that its decision in United States v. Reese, 998 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1993), dictated the result. It noted that in Reese it had explained that “it would appear that the ‘property’ as to which [the savings and loan] might have suffered ‘damage to or loss or destruction of’ could only be loan proceeds funded in cash at the original closing of [the improperly extended] loan.” Id. at 1283. However, we also explained that when the real property that secures such a loan is deeded back to the financial institution, “the value of such property should constitute a partial return of the ‘cash loan proceeds.’ ” Id. at 1284. Holley, 23 F.3d at 915. But the court’s reasoning in Reese was limited to this statement: “Conceptually, it would seem to us that No. 10-3794 29 when a lender accepts conveyance of the se- cured property in lieu of foreclosure, the value of such property should constitute a partial return of the ‘cash loan proceeds.’ ” Reese, 998 F.2d at 1284. This reasoning ignores the fact that the victim accepted the collateral real estate, not in lieu of the cash proceeds, but in order to sell and recoup the cash proceeds. After citing the reasoning of Reese, the court in Holley then turned to Smith, stating: The Smith court held that the defendant “should receive credit against the restitution amount for the value of the collateral property as of the date title to the property was transferred” to the FSLIC’s successor. Id. at 625. The court reasoned that, as of that date, “the new owner had the power to dispose of the property and receive compensation.” Id. The Smith court concluded that the value of the returned property “should therefore be measured by what the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date. Any reduction in value after [the defendant] lost title to the property stems from a decision by the new owners to hold on to the property.” Id. Holley, 23 F.3d at 915. Unlike the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Smith, the Fifth Circuit in Holley at least acknowledged the government’s argument “that the ‘property’ that was lost was [the bank’s] capital and that the return of [the real estate] to [the bank] represents only the return of the collateral for the 30 No. 10-3794 actual property involved in this case” and that it was not until that collateral was sold for cash that the victim regained its property. Id. But Holley did not provide any basis for ignoring this distinction, other than citing its previous decision in Reese. See id. And Reese merely concluded that there was no “conceptual” difference. Reese, 998 F.2d at 1284. However, as explained above, the two are not conceptually equivalent: cash is liquid, real estate is not; the collateral secured the cash loan—it was not the cash loan; and the victim had cash before the fraud and wanted cash back as its returned property. In short, we find the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Reese unpersuasive and thus its decision in Holley adds nothing to the analysis.
Finally, the Second Circuit addressed the issue of offset value in United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006). In Boccagna, the defendants were charged in a mortgage fraud scheme involving the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Id. at 109-110. HUD foreclosed on the collateral and then resold the real estate at a fraction of their fair market value to the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development in order to further its mission to develop low-cost housing. Id. at 110. When considering the appropriate amount by which to offset the victim’s loss, the Boccagna court initially noted that the government did not argue that “the property that is returned” language of the MVRA only applies to actual No. 10-3794 31 cash and not to “any property that HUD obtained after default.” Id. at 112 n.2. The court then said that “[s]uch an argument would not be convincing,” but based its holding on precedent from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.1 1 Id. Boccagna explained: As two of our sister circuits, construing identical offset language in the Victim and Witness Protection Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3663, have concluded, when a lender victim acquires title to property securing a loan, “the value of such property should constitute a partial return of the cash loan proceeds.” United States v. Holley, 23 F.3d 902, 915 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Smith, 944 F.2d 618, 625 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that defendant “should receive credit against the restitution amount for the value of the collateral property as of the date title to the property was transferred” to lender victim). Boccagna, 450 F.3d at 112 n.2. The Second Circuit in Boccagna then went on to hold that the offset value should generally be based on the fair market value of the real estate at the time of foreclosure. Id. at 109. Boccagna, thus, adds nothing to the analysis, having merely relied on Holley and Smith—which were incorrect for the reasons noted above. 11 The court in Boccagna also cited this court’s decision in Shepard. But as discussed above, see supra at 17-18 n.8, Shepard is distinguishable. 32 No. 10-3794 In sum, as our detailed discussion of the Ninth, Fifth and Second Circuits’ decisions explains, those decisions all relied on the keystone decision in Smith. And the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Smith is flawed for several reasons: Smith purported to rely upon the statutory language but ignored the distinction between the property stolen (cash) and the property returned (real estate). Compounding this error was Smith’s reliance on Tyler which was factually distinct. In Tyler, the defendant was charged with stealing timber and the property recovered—on the same day as the theft—was timber. Thus, Tyler does not answer the question of the appropriate offset value where the property stolen and returned differ. The Ninth Circuit in Smith also treated real estate as a liquid asset. But it was not liquid because the collateral could not be turned into cash the same day title transferred. The court misconstrued the market forces by assuming that the only reason collateral would not be immediately turned into cash would be a deliberate decision by the victim to hold on to the property. Beyond Smith’s faulty reasoning, the only additional rationale for using the value of real estate at the time the victim obtained title to the collateral was the Fifth Circuit’s view in Reese that, conceptually, obtaining title to real estate is the same as receiving cash. But it is not: real estate is not liquid; it is not what was stolen; it is not what the victim wants; and it does not benefit the victim in any way until it is turned back into cash upon resale. Accordingly, it is only when the real estate is converted into cash through a future sale that the offset value should be determined. The plain language of the No. 10-3794 33 MVRA dictates this conclusion because “the value (as of the date the property is returned),” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(b) (emphasis added), in the context of the statute must mean the property taken from the victim. But even if there were any ambiguity in the meaning of “the property,” we would interpret that language to best achieve the statutory goal of the MVRA—to make the victim whole—and this goal is best achieved by calculating restitution based on the actual cash proceeds recouped following the resale of any collateral real estate. 5. Circuits holding that the offset value is determined based on the cash proceeds recouped following resale of the collateral real estate. This brings us now to the decisions from the Third, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, which have all held that their respective district courts correctly used, as the offset value for calculating restitution, the eventual proceeds recouped following a foreclosure sale.1 2 a. The Third Circuit The Third Circuit addressed this issue in United States v. Himler, 355 F.3d 735 (3d Cir. 2004). In Himler, the defen- 12 As discussed earlier, see supra at 23, Judge O’Scannlain dissented in the pivotal Ninth Circuit opinion (United States v. Smith), preferring the same approach to the offset valuation later approved by the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits. 34 No. 10-3794 dant had fraudulently purchased a condominium by tendering false checks to a settlement company that in turn paid the seller $193,833. Id. at 737. The district court ordered Himler “to pay restitution in the amount of $193,833—to be reduced by the ultimate net proceeds from the sale of the condominium.” Id. at 744. The Third Circuit upheld that award, noting first that the victim in this case “was not a seller of the condominium who was returned to his or her pre-crime position upon reobtaining title to the condominium. Rather, [the victim] was the settlement company that facilitated the purchase and sale between [the seller] and [the defendant].” Id. And deeding the collateral real estate back to the settlement company did not adequately compensate the victim for its loss.1 3 Id. at 744-45. The Third Circuit then noted that the government had conceded that the statute requires a district court to “value” the property “as of the date the property is returned” to the victim. Id. at 745. But the court agreed with the government that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a restitution order that would be reduced by the future proceeds from the real estate’s sale. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that, had the offset amount been determined prior to its sale, the defendant would have been left with a high bill because market forces 13 In Himler, the court also noted that the defendant had purchased the condominium at an inflated price ($193,833) while other similar condominiums were selling between $150,000 and $160,000. Himler, 355 F.3d at 744. No. 10-3794 35 allowed the condominium to sell for $181,000, whereas at the time title transferred to the settlement company, similar condominiums were selling for $150,000 to $160,000. Id. In Himler, the Third Circuit seemed to rely on the fact that the defendant was in a better position under the district court’s approach because the real estate values had increased between the time title transferred and the resale. Id. at 745. Obviously, we have the converse here, but what Himler’s reasoning illustrates is that with fluctuating real estate values, the only way to measure the true loss to the victim is by looking to the actual resale price of the collateral real estate. Under the MVRA, the actual loss is the appropriate measure of restitution. b. The Tenth Circuit In United States v. James, 564 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009), the Tenth Circuit also upheld a restitution award that calculated the total loss by subtracting the eventual resale price of the collateral real estate from the initial loan proceeds. Id. at 1246-47. In James, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that “[b]ecause, in this case, the foreclosure price method more closely reflects the actual loss [the victim] experienced, we cannot say the district court’s method of using that value was unreasonable or that it otherwise erred in using that valuation method in determining the amount of restitution under the MVRA.” Id. 36 No. 10-3794 c. The Eighth Circuit Similarly, in United States v. Statman, 604 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2010), the Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s use of the eventual proceeds from a foreclosure sale as the offset value. Id. at 538. In that case, the defendants had been charged with wire fraud in relation to a scheme to purchase a business. Id. at 532. Among other things, in purchasing the business they assumed a bond secured by real estate. Id. at 536. Following their conviction for fraud, at sentencing defendant Rund objected to the government’s methodology for calculating restitution. Id. at 537. Then on appeal Rund argued that “the district court erred because the loss to [the victim] should not have been calculated based on the alleged foreclosure sale price but [, instead, on] the assessed value of the properties.” Id. The court rejected Rund’s approach, which, as the Eighth Circuit explained, “would have this court use the appraised value of the foreclosed property to calculate the loss amount, which would result in a lower restitution payment to [the victim].” Id. In rejecting Rund’s approach, the Eighth Circuit stressed the overarching goal of the MVRA— making crime victims whole—and then concluded that “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, the district court’s use of the foreclosure sale price provided a fair and adequate representation of [the victim’s] loss and satisfied the overarching goal of the MVRA, to make [the victim] whole.” Id. The Himler, 355 F.3d 735, Statman, 604 F.3d 529, and James, 564 F.3d 1237, decisions all support our conclusion No. 10-3794 37 today that the offset value is best determined by the money eventually recouped upon the resale of the collateral real estate. This conclusion is consistent with the plain meaning of the MVRA and also furthers the statutory goal of making the victims whole again. Accordingly, today we join the view of the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits and hold that the offset value is the eventual proceeds recouped following a foreclosure sale.