Robers v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that restitution is part of sentencing and that defendant has no right to confrontation
• holding that restitution under the MVRA is reduced by “the amount of money the victim [actually] receive[s]”
• holding that in the case of a fraudulently obtained loan, restitution is based on “the money lent” minus any money returned to the victim
• holding that, because money is fungible, it “need not be the very same bills or check” that are returned to a victim
• holding that a sentencing court imposing restitution under the MVRA “must reduce the restitution amount by the amount of money the victim received in selling the collateral, not the value of the collateral when the victim received it”
• noting that, if the property damaged, lost, or destroyed was currency, then the property returned “need not be the very same bills”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).