United States v. Valentino Nucci

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “reading the [MVRA] to provide recovery in excess of the amount of the loss would be in derogation of the common law,” which Congress has not “clearly and unequivocally ... authorize[d]”
• “[A]bsent a statutory command, there is no legal basis to permit an award that allows a victim to recover more than his due.”
• “[T]he pertinent statutory provisions establish that the decision whether to apportion restitution among defendants is a discretionary one.”
• “[T[he record here is devoid of a proper payment schedule because there is no way to tell whether the district court ordered Nucci to pay the $34,476 restitution at once or in installments.”
• affirming restitution orders featuring such a scheme
• MVRA does not permit double recovery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).