United States v. Ned Roscoe

MEMORANDUM

Ned Roscoe was convicted of bank fraud and now contests the validity and amount of the district court’s restitution order.

1. Roscoe claims that the restitution order is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it is based on facts found by the judge rather than the jury. However, this court rejected that argument in United States v. Green, 722 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir.2013).

2. Roscoe challenges the amount of restitution the court ordered him to pay. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act requires a defendant to “make restitution to the victim of the offense” in an amount equal to the value of the property lost. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(l), (b)(1). Thus, “[t]he government has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim’s damages were caused by the conduct of which defendant was convicted.” United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2008) (quotation marks omitted).

A district court “has broad discretion in ordering restitution. A restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, provided it is within the bounds of the statutory framework. The…