Silver

MEMORANDUM **

The Government appeals the district court’s decision not to order defendant Michael Silver to pay restitution to the identified victims of his mail fraud. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We vacate the portion of the Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order that provides that Defendant’s payment of restitution is suspended, and we remand for entry of an order requiring payment of restitution.

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) eliminates the district court’s discretion with respect to restitution by defendants convicted of certain crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). The statutory directive is clear: the “[sentencing] court shall order ... that the defendant make restitution to the victim[s]” for “an offense against property under this title ... including any offense committed by fraud or deceit.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). We have held that “if the MVRA applies, a restitution order is mandatory regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay.” United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir.2003); see United…