United States v. Leftwich
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25853
| 4th Cir. | 2010Background
- Leftwich pled guilty to mail fraud and filing false claims, alleging a multi-year IRS refund scheme.
- The scheme claimed refunds exceeding $4 million for fuel used for non-taxable purposes; IRS issued $2,404,087 to Leftwich and coconspirators.
- Plea agreement warned the court may order restitution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A, 3664; district court indicated authority but gave no statutory basis at sentencing.
- Leftwich argued MVRA did not apply; VWPA could be considered but its factors might negate restitution.
- District court ordered restitution $2,404,087 with no explicit statutory basis or VWPA/MVRA-specific findings; judgment alone stated the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What statute governs restitution? | Leftwich contends VWPA applies; MVRA not applied. | Leftwich argues the court must state the statute used; MVRA may apply mandatorily. | Statutory basis required; remand to identify MVRA or VWPA applicability. |
| If VWPA applies, were the required findings made? | VWPA requires findings on financial resources, needs, dependents. | Not applicable or insufficiently addressed under VWPA. | Findings were not made; remand needed for § 3663(a)(1)(B) findings. |
| If MVRA applies, was the full amount properly ordered and is a payment schedule required? | MVRA mandates full restitution to victim without considering defendant's ability to pay, plus schedule factors. | MVRA permits payment schedule considerations; court must make § 3664(f)(2) findings. | MVRA applicability requires schedule-related findings; insufficient under MVRA as applied. |
| Is the restitution order reviewable without a stated statute? | Unclear basis impedes review of discretion. | — | Vacated for lack of statute and remand for proper identification and findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stuver, 845 F.2d 73 (4th Cir. 1988) (require precise statutory basis for appellate review of restitution)
- United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 1996) (VWPA findings tied to financial resources and needs required)
- United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir. 2000) (MVRA payment schedule findings required)
- United States v. Roper, 462 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2006) (MVRA full restitution mandated without regard to defendant's economics)
- United States v. Alalade, 204 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2000) (MVRA cannot authorize partial restitution when statute applies)
- United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2010) (review of restitution order under statutory framework)
- United States v. Henoud, 81 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 1996) (restitution statute distinctions and review standards)