United States v. Janosko, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433

Janosko, while incarcerated in Massachusetts, used an inmate computer to access personnel files containing SSNs of about 1,100 employees.
The access breached the facility's limits, damaging or compromising equipment and exposing sensitive information.
The indictment charged damaging a protected computer, causing loss, and damage to a system used in administering justice.
Janosko pleaded guilty under a plea agreement; restitution was to be determined by the court.
The district court ordered restitution totaling $4,309 for equipment costs and $6,600 for credit-monitoring costs; Janosko objected to the latter.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding credit-monitoring costs qualify as restitution loss under the applicable statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are credit-monitoring costs recoverable as 'loss' under §1030 and restitution statute?	Janosko argued credit monitoring is not 'loss' or proximate to the offense.	The government contends loss includes reasonable costs of responding to an offense, such as credit monitoring.	Yes; credit-monitoring costs qualify as recoverable loss.
Is the timing of the credit check relevant to restitution?	Timeliness of the credit checks should be required for restitution.	Timeliness may be assessed under plain-error review; timing is not fatal to recovery.	Timing need not bar recovery; the costs were reasonably connected to the offense.

Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (expenses qualifying for restitution must not be too attenuated)
United States v. Cutter, 313 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (expenses must be reasonably foreseeable and linked to the offense)
United States v. Vaknin, 112 F.3d 579 (1st Cir. 1997) (timeliness and nexus considerations in restitution)
United States v. Collins, 209 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (reasonableness and foreseeability of losses as restitution)
United States v. Millot, 433 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (§1030 does not restrict losses to the owner of the system)