United States v. Maynard and Ludwig, 743 F.3d 374

Maynard and Ludwig committed five quick bank robberies in 2011; they pled guilty and were sentenced in 2012. Restitution was ordered jointly and severally.
The MVRA (§ 3663A) governed restitution; $12,966 (cash taken) was uncontested. The disputed restitution items were Merchants Bank expenses totaling roughly $8,885 (regular staff paid leave and replacement staff pay, replacement staff mileage, wanted posters, and a temporary security guard).
The bank closed for the afternoon as a crime scene and kept regular staff home with pay for two additional days; temporary staff worked those days and were paid. The bank also produced wanted posters and hired a short-term security guard.
The district court ordered restitution for the full bank expenses, finding they were directly and proximately caused by the robberies.
On appeal the defendants challenged only the non-cash portions of restitution, arguing those expenses fall outside the enumerated categories of compensable loss under the MVRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MVRA § 3663A permits restitution for victim business expenses not listed in the statute	Gov: MVRA requires full compensation for victims' losses directly and proximately caused by the offense	Maynard/Ludwig: MVRA limits restitution to the specific categories listed in § 3663A(b)	Held: MVRA is limited to enumerated categories; direct/proximate causation alone is insufficient
Whether wages paid to regular staff while bank was closed are reimbursable	Gov: All wages paid because of the robbery are losses caused by defendants	Defs: Bank would have paid staff anyway; full recovery creates windfall	Held: Wages for time the bank was closed as a crime scene (that day) are compensable; otherwise not
Whether replacement staff wages and related mileage are compensable	Gov: Replacement wages are business losses caused by the robbery	Defs: These are business operating expenses and not within § 3663A(b) categories	Held: Replacement wages and mileage are not compensable under § 3663A(b)
Whether wanted posters and short-term security guard costs are "necessary" to investigation/prosecution under § 3663A(b)(4)	Gov: Such expenses aided victim response and safety	Defs: These were gratuitous/business choices, not necessary to investigation/prosecution	Held: Posters and temporary guard costs were not "necessary" to investigation/prosecution and thus not recoverable

United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (internal investigations and related fees may be reimbursable when they assist prosecution)
United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (MVRA’s purpose is to make victims whole)
United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.) (actual loss and proximate causation required for restitution calculations)
United States v. Marino, 654 F.3d 310 (2d Cir.) (§ 3664 sets restitution procedures; causation principles apply)
United States v. Wilfong, 551 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir.) (lost work time from temporary closure due to threat can be compensable)
United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766 (9th Cir.) (lost work hours during decontamination held compensable)