United States v. Casados, 26 F.4th 845

Casados, charged in Indian country for a vehicular killing, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder; plea anticipated restitution to the victim, Charlene Bailey.
The Probation Office identified two restitution requests: $1,854 to the La Plata County Crime Victim Compensation Board for Bailey’s cremation, and $7,724.20 the government sought to reimburse Bailey’s son, Anthony Rivas, for travel to Casados’s detention hearing.
At sentencing the district court ordered Casados to pay both amounts, awarding $7,724.20 to Rivas as the victim’s representative; Casados appealed only the award to Rivas.
The legal dispute turned on interpreting the MVRA: §3663A(a)(2) (a representative may “assume the victim’s rights”) and §3663A(b)(4) (restitution for transportation expenses ‘‘to reimburse the victim’’).
Casados argued a representative can only recover the victim’s own losses; the government argued a representative steps into the victim’s shoes and thus may recover expenses that family members actually incurred attending proceedings.
The Tenth Circuit reversed: a representative may receive restitution only for losses incurred by the victim, not for the representative’s (or family members’) own expenses; remanded for a corrected restitution order.

Issue	Casados' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a victim’s representative may recover the representative’s own travel and related expenses under the MVRA	The §3663A(a)(2) assumption-of-rights allows the representative only to recover the victim’s covered losses; it does not permit substituting the representative’s expenses for the victim’s	Assuming the victim’s rights means the representative stands in the victim’s shoes and may recover expenses the victim would have been entitled to recover (including travel actually incurred by family)	The representative may recover only the victim’s losses. The district court erred in awarding restitution to Rivas for travel expenses he and his family incurred; reversed and remanded for corrected order.

United States v. Wilcox, 487 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir. 2007) (holds a representative cannot substitute her own losses for the victim’s under the MVRA)
United States v. Pizzichiello, 272 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2001) (held family members could recover under related statute; rejected by Tenth Circuit as unpersuasive here)
United States v. Speakman, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (explains MVRA is compensatory and restitution must compensate the victim)
United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (restitution order must be based on actual loss)
United States v. Quarrell, 310 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 2002) (same principle: restitution tied to actual loss)
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) (discusses MVRA purpose of making victims whole)
United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2005) (directs enforcement of clear statutory language)
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017) (standard of de novo review for restitution legality)