United States v. Anne Hankins, 858 F.3d 1273

In 2001 Anne Hankins pled guilty to bank fraud; the district court under the MVRA ordered $350,000 in restitution payable to U.S. Bank (later assigned to Horton & Associates).
Horton filed a “Full Satisfaction of Judgment” in 2013 after accepting $5,000 from Hankins; Hankins stopped paying thereafter.
The Treasury Offset Program later garnished $21,765 and other amounts toward the restitution balance; Hankins moved to treat the judgment as satisfied.
The district court held the private settlement could not extinguish the restitution order and, treating Horton as having disclaimed further interest, redirected ongoing and garnished payments to the federal Crime Victims Fund.
Hankins appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a victim (or assignee) extinguish an MVRA restitution judgment by private settlement or release?	Hankins: Horton’s “Full Satisfaction” for $5,000 extinguished the restitution obligation.	Government: Restitution is part of the criminal sentence and cannot be altered by private agreement.	No—private settlement cannot modify or extinguish an MVRA restitution order; only the court may alter the sentence.
May a district court redirect restitution payments to the federal Crime Victims Fund when the victim disclaims further interest (without a direct assignment)?	Hankins: Redirecting payments to the Fund exceeded the court’s authority and undermined the private agreement.	Government: Court may redirect payments to give effect to the restitution sentence and the MVRA’s purposes.	Yes—the district court may direct payments to the Crime Victims Fund when the victim disclaims interest; this fills a statutory gap and furthers MVRA compensatory/penal goals.

United States v. Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal restitution under MVRA is mandatory and not waived by prior civil settlement)
United States v. Turner, 312 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002) (assignment to third party validated; court noted unresolved future allocation questions)
United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031 (6th Cir. 2001) (private releases cannot circumvent criminal sentencing goals)
United States v. Johnson, 378 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2004) (court may redirect payments notwithstanding § 3664(g)(2) authorizing victim assignments)
United States v. Speakman, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (contrasting view that restitution is dependent on victim acceptance)
United States v. Pawlinski, 374 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2004) (contrasting view that district court lacked authority to redirect restitution to non-victims)