920 F.3d 83
1st Cir.2019Background
- González-Calderón pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to steer Puerto Rico House telecommunications contracts to a co-conspirator (3 Comm) via rigged bidding.
- The district court ordered mandatory restitution under the MVRA; the written order required payment of $408,208.42.
- The total amount paid by the House for the installation and service of the system was $482,208.42 (the government’s asserted gross gain).
- González-Calderón did not object to the restitution amount at sentencing; the government does not contest a $74,000 discrepancy that reduced the ordered figure.
- On appeal he argued the court improperly measured restitution by the conspiracy’s gross receipts (the defendants’ gain) rather than the House’s actual pecuniary loss, noting the House continues to use the system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by using conspiracy’s gross receipts as measure of victim’s loss for MVRA restitution | González-Calderón: restitution should reflect the House’s actual loss, not the conspiracy’s gross gain; House continues to use the system so payments are not necessarily losses | Government/District Court: payments made because of the conspiracy are the but-for cause of the House’s expenditures; the conspirators’ receipts reasonably measure victim loss | Court: No error — record supports that the conspiracy caused the House to pay; the conspiracy’s gross receipts are a reasonable proxy for actual loss |
| Standard of review given failure to object at sentencing | González-Calderón: challenges the restitution calculation on appeal | Government: forfeiture/waiver arguments; no reversible error | Court: Review for plain error; appeal fails at first step because no clear or obvious error was shown |
| Whether continued use of goods bars restitution | González-Calderón: continued use indicates no loss or reduced loss | Government: but-for causation suffices; continued use doesn’t negate that the payments were caused by fraud | Court: Continued use does not negate but-for causation; payments are compensable losses |
| Whether precedent (e.g., Kilpatrick) mandates reversal when gain used as proxy | González-Calderón: cites Kilpatrick to show gain ≠ loss without evidence | Government: Kilpatrick allows gain as proxy where record supports it | Court: Kilpatrick is distinguishable; here record provides reliable basis to equate conspirators’ gain with victim loss |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Naphaeng, 906 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2018) (MVRA restitution must be record-based and reflect victim’s actual losses)
- United States v. Salas-Fernández, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (plain-error review standard articulated)
- United States v. Sánchez-Maldonado, 737 F.3d 826 (1st Cir. 2013) (district restitution need not meet scientific precision)
- United States v. Alphas, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 2015) (but-for causation required for restitution)
- United States v. Cutter, 313 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (fraud must be the but-for cause of the loss)
- United States v. Kilpatrick, 798 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s gain may not substitute for victim loss when record lacks evidence; gain can serve as proxy in some cases)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived)