{"id":1933,"date":"2017-05-31T00:49:11","date_gmt":"2017-05-31T05:49:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=1933"},"modified":"2019-11-20T15:48:12","modified_gmt":"2019-11-20T20:48:12","slug":"federal-restitution-categorical-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach","title":{"rendered":"Federal Restitution Order Not Subject To Categorical Approach, Fourth Circuit Decides"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The “categorical approach” does not apply to federal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA)<\/a>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently decided. In addition, the court held that a successor lender is entitled to restitution in an amount equal to the original face value of the debt minus any monies recovered even if the successor lender may have purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar. Timothy Ritchie was convicted of making false statements to HUD, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Ritchie lied on a HUD-1 statement when purchasing a home. Countrywide Bank loaned Ritchie $2,445,102 to purchase the property. Ritchie eventually defaulted on the loan. The property was later sold for $1,106,000. Countrywide was bought by Bank of America (BofA) after the loan was originated. At sentencing<\/a>, the Government argued that BOFA was now the “victim” of Ritchie’s fraud under the MVRA for purposes of federal restitution. The sentencing court agreed and imposed restitution of $1,385,444, the difference between the amount of the original loan and what the property was later sold for after foreclosure. Ritchie argued on appeal that “because no element of 18 U.SC. 1001 requires that government property (or any other property) be involved in the \u2018matter\u2019 as to which the false statement is made,’ it follows that \u00a7 1001 ‘categorically is not an \u2018offense against property\u2019’ under subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) of the MVRA, rendering restitution improper in his case. “<\/p>\nThe Fourth Circuit disagreed.
\n\n

As with any issue of statutory interpretation, ‘we begin by analyzing [the MVRA\u2019s] text.’ The Supreme Court has instructed us to apply the categorical approach to statutory language that, when \u201cread naturally, . . . refers to a generic crime as generally committed.\u201d Nijhawan v. Holder<\/em>, 557 U.S. 29, 34 (2009). Consistent with this premise, courts construe the sentence-enhancement provision of the Armed Criminal Career Act (\u201cACCA\u201d) defining a generic \u201cviolent felony\u201d as, inter alia, a crime that \u201chas as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,\u201d or \u201cis burglary, arson, or extortion, or involves use of explosives,\u201d to require application of the elements-based categorical approach<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here, we do not read the relevant text\u2014\u201cany offense . . . that is . . . an offense against property under [Title 18]\u201d\u2014to refer to a generic crime as generally committed. In that regard, we note that subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) of the MVRA<\/a> contains no language suggesting that courts look only to the elements of Title 18 statutory offenses, nor does it provide an illustrative list of property offenses that \u201cmust refer to generic crimes.\u201d See Nijhawan<\/em>, 557 U.S. at 37 (approving application of categorical approach to 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1101(a)(43)(A)\u2019s list of the generic offenses of \u201cmurder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor\u201d).<\/p>\n

The structure of the statutory text also counsels against Ritchie\u2019s view. Subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) applies the MVRA to \u201ca crime of violence, as defined in section 16,\u201d 5 and, under 18 U.S.C. \u00a016, we are required \u201cto look to the elements and the nature of the offense of conviction, rather than to the particular facts relating to the crime.\u201d Leocal v. Ashcroft<\/em>, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004). Subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) contains no such modifying reference. We think this \u201ccontrasting terminology\u201d shows that Congress intended subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) \u201cto cover a broader range of prior offenses\u201d than those reached\u00a0by subsection (c)(1)(A)(i).<\/p>\n

The Fourth Circuit also rejected, over a dissent, Ritchie’s argument that his federal restitution should be limited to what BOFA paid for his mortgage from Countrywide.<\/p>\n

The proper restitution award due in the context of a fraudulent mortgage transaction is a relatively simple calculation. The \u201cowner of the property\u201d that was lost (i.e., the money lent), or the person \u201cdesignated by the owner\u201d to receive it, is entitled to a restitution award that is equivalent to the outstanding amount of the money that remains due under the fraudulently obtained loan. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3663A(b)(1)(A). And because the money that was lent to the borrower is the \u201cproperty\u201d under the MVRA, that amount necessarily takes into account any portion of the money that was \u201creturned\u201d to the owner or its designee when the collateral that secured the loan was sold.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The court recognized that its decision on this issue created a split with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in\u00a0United States v. Luis<\/em>, 765 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014). However, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it “declined to follow the Ninth Circuit\u2019s contrary reasoning.”<\/p>\n

Ritchie’s sentence and federal restitution order was accordingly affirmed in all respects.\u00a0See<\/em>: United States v. Ritchie<\/a><\/em>, No. 16-4036 (4th Cir. 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The “categorical approach” does not apply to federal restitution orders under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently decided. In addition, the court held that a successor lender is entitled to restitution in an amount equal to the original face value of the debt minus any…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1937,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[314],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nFederal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net | 802-444-4357<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Sentencing.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-05-31T05:49:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-20T20:48:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"426\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach\",\"name\":\"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net | 802-444-4357\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-05-31T05:49:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-20T20:48:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\"},\"description\":\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":426,\"caption\":\"ritchie, mvra ,federal restitution, Categorical Approach\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federal Restitution Order Not Subject To Categorical Approach, Fourth Circuit Decides\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\",\"name\":\"Sentencing.net\",\"description\":\"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\",\"name\":\"Brandon Sample\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Brandon Sample\"},\"description\":\"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/brandonsample.com\",\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net | 802-444-4357","description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net","og_description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.","og_url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach","og_site_name":"Sentencing.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_author":"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_published_time":"2017-05-31T05:49:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-20T20:48:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":426,"url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Brandon Sample","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net","twitter_description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.","twitter_creator":"@attorneysample","twitter_site":"@attorneysample","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Brandon Sample","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach","name":"Federal Restitution | Categorical Approach | Sentencing.net | 802-444-4357","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg","datePublished":"2017-05-31T05:49:11+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-20T20:48:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c"},"description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has rejected application of the categorical approach to a federal restitution order under MVRA.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/dollar-1362244_640.jpg","width":640,"height":426,"caption":"ritchie, mvra ,federal restitution, Categorical Approach"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/federal-restitution-categorical-approach#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federal Restitution Order Not Subject To Categorical Approach, Fourth Circuit Decides"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/","name":"Sentencing.net","description":"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c","name":"Brandon Sample","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Brandon Sample"},"description":"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).","sameAs":["https:\/\/brandonsample.com","www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1933\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}