United States v. Richard Koenig

983 F.2d 1078 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard KOENIG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10560. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 14, 1992. Decided Jan. 8, 1993. Before HUG, PREGERSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 The issue in this case is whether the defendant agreed to pay restitution for harm caused by conduct that was the subject of dismissed counts. Koenig contends that the restitution order imposed upon him is invalid because it exceeds the amount charged in the count to which he pleaded guilty, and because the plea agreement is vague and ambiguous as to the amount of restitution due at the time of entry of the guilty plea. 3 We review a restitution order authorized by law only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Soderling, 970 F.2d 529, 534 (9th Cir.1992). Restitution is limited to the losses caused by the conduct underlying the offense…