 |
All Courts |
 |
Federal Courts |
|
US Court of Appeals Cases |
|
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
|
2013-12 |
-
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 20, 2013 DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 12‐3377 Appeal from the United States District Court for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff‐Appellee, Eastern Division. v. No. 89 CR 742‐1 LUIS A. MUNOZ, Charles P. Kocoras, Defendant‐Appellant. Judge. O R D E R The order issued today is amended. The following paragraph on page 4 is replaced to read: Our position has proven controversial among some of our sister circuits. The Second and Third Circuits disagree with our holding in Daddato; in their view, our interpretation of the catch‐all provision in § 3583(d) allows the district courts to circumvent the statutory limitations on restitution orders. See United States v. Varrone,
554 F.3d 327, 335 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Cottman,
142 F.3d 160, 169–70 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Gall, 21 F.3d at 112–13 (Jones, J., concurring). But see United States v. Love,
431 F.3d 477, 481 & n.15 (5th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing Daddato and Cottman by suggesting that because drug buy money was not restitution to a victim, ordering its repayment falls outside of the statutory restrictions on ordering restitution to victims under VWPA).4 4 Despite distinguishing Daddato and Cottman, the Fifth Circuit did say that “it is probable that the catch‐all provision would not allow a court to order in the first instance restitution for which Congress implicitly has denied authorization by not allowing it under § 3563(b)(2).” United States v. Love,
431 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 2005).
Document Info
Docket Number： 12-3377
Judges： PerCuriam
Filed Date： 12/20/2013
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/30/2014