United States v. Julius Holley
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Julius Holley pled guilty to felony destruction of property within the special jurisdiction of the United States without a plea agreement. 18 U.S.C. § 1363 . The district court awarded a total of $9,178.92 in restitution for a house and ear, owned by the victim Edith Tybo, damaged by Holley. Holley appeals, arguing that the award was not based on substantial evidence and that portions of the award were improperly allocated to Edith Tybo, despite her receipt of compensation from third parties.
The restitution order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lazarenko, 624 F.3d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir.2010). Factual findings supporting a determination of restitution are reviewed for clear error, while the legality of such an order, including whether the recipient of restitution is a victim, is reviewed de novo. Id.
Substantial evidence supported the restitution award — a detailed affidavit from the victim and an evidentiary hearing that included testimony from four witnesses. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 557 (9th Cir.2008) (“[V]ictim affidavits will generally provide sufficient, reliable evidence to support a restitution order.”).