Jull

United States v. Jull

Good Law
24 F. App'x 686
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 21, 2001No. 00-30293, 00-30392; D.C. No. CR-98-6014-RHWCalifornia1,093 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Ronae Jull pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , in connection with a fraudulent investment scheme. The plea agreement stipulated that Jull would be ordered to pay restitution in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”). The district court ordered restitution in the amount of $1,289,333.51 to cover losses for all the victims of Jull’s investment scheme. Jull contests the amount of the restitution order on two grounds: (1) that the district court did not properly consider her Mure ability to pay, and (2) that the amount impermissibly exceeded the loss incurred under the offense of conviction and the loss stated in the indictment. We affirm.

I. Relevance of the Defendant’s Ability to Pay

Jull first contends that the district court did not properly assess her Mure ability to pay restitution under the Victim Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 . However, the MVRA, not the VWPA, governs the imposition of restitution for Jull. Unlike the restitution provisions of the VWPA, the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. *688 § 3663A, requires the court to impose full restitution without considering the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.