Court Opinion

ID: 1004512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:42:21.914377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:12.167036
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 01-4060

BOUNTAN CHANNITA,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-203)

Submitted: May 17, 2001

Decided: May 30, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas N. Cochran, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ben-
jamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bountan Channita pled guilt to one count of bank fraud. He was
sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and 5 years' supervised
release. The court also ordered Channita to make restitution in the
amount of $22,800, which was the total amount of the loss. On
appeal, Channita argues that the district court should have appor-
tioned the amount of restitution between him and the other partici-
pants in the crime, none of whom were defendants. Finding no error,
we affirm.

Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 ("MVRA"),
restitution is mandatory for particular crimes, including those offenses
involving fraud. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii) (West
2000). The MVRA provides that "[i]n each order of restitution, the
court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each
victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration
of the economic circumstances of the defendant." 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3664(f)(1)(A) (West 2000); see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A(d) (pro-
viding that an order of restitution under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A "shall
be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664").

In those instances where there is more than one defendant, a court
"may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of
restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect
the level of contribution to the victim's loss and economic circum-
stances of each defendant." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(h). In the instant
appeal, Channita was the only defendant. Thus, the district court was
"required" to order Channita "to make restitution to the victim of a
covered offense in the full amount of each victim's loss." United
States v. Alalade, 204 F.3d 536, 540 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S.
1269 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                  2