Opinion ID: 220729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: $129,044 of SAMHSA funds

Text: Parisi first contests the inclusion of the $129,044 deriving from the misapplication of SAMHSA funds used to pay ghost employee salaries in the early part of 2004. Parisi argues that he was not the cause of this loss under the standard announced in United States v. Vaknin, 112 F.3d 579, 589 (1st Cir.1997). In Vaknin, we held that a modified but for standard of causation is appropriate for restitution under the [Victim and Witness Protection Act], meaning that the government must show not only that a particular loss would not have occurred but for the conduct underlying the offense of conviction, but also that the causal nexus between the conduct and the loss is not too attenuated (either factually or temporally). Id. at 589-90. We cautioned that what constitutes sufficient causation can only be determined case by case, in a fact-specific probe. Id. [28] Parisi was acquitted of count three, which alleged the actual misapplication, but was convicted of count five, which alleged filing false statements with HHS relating to the misuse of the SAMHSA funds. [29] Although the timing is not entirely clear, it appears that the funds were disbursed no later than May 2004, i.e., before the falsified 269 forms were filed with HHS. The form therefore could not have been a but for cause in causing HHS to disburse the funds. See id. at 589 (Restitution should not be ordered in respect to a loss which would have occurred regardless of the defendant's conduct.). This sum therefore should not have been included under Vaknin. [30]