United States v. Victor Hackett

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 13301·311 F.3d 989·2002 WL 31655167·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11428·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 24106
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 200201-30360California1,346 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reavley, J.

DefendanL-Appellant Victor Hackett appeals the district court’s order of restitution for property damage caused by a fire that resulted from the operation of a methamphetamine laboratory. He argues that the district court erred (1) by applying 21 U.S.C. § 853 (q)(3) to order restitution for property damage, and (2) by finding that he directly and proximately caused the loss. We affirm.

Background

Victor Hackett pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Hackett’s co-defendant Shandy Felch rented a home in Spokane, Washington, in which she, her three children, and co-defendant Brady Olds lived. Felch and Olds manufactured metham phetamine in the upstairs bedroom of the home. Haekett was a frequent visitor and occasional overnight guest at the residence, and he and Olds purchased or stole items necessary for operation of the clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. The drugs manufactured at the home were consumed by Felch, Olds, and Haekett.

On February 26, 2001, Felch placed a jar of chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine on a hotplate. The jar exploded and a fire ensued. Although…

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.