United States v. Papagno
395 U.S. App. D.C. 82
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Papagno, a computer specialist at the Naval Research Laboratory, stole 19,709 computer items over a 10-year period.
- He pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison after the grand scheme was uncovered in 2007.
- The Government sought restitution of about $160,000 to cover NRL's internal investigation costs.
- The District Court ordered Papagno to reimburse $159,183.15 for the Lab's internal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4).
- The core issue is whether the internal-investigation costs qualify as 'necessary ... expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution' of the offense.
- This court reverses, holding that internal-investigation costs not required or requested by criminal investigators/prosecutors are not recoverable under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'participation' in § 3663A(b)(4) | Internal investigation constitutes participation aiding the criminal case. | Internal investigation not required or requested by investigators; thus not participation. | Not participation; internal costs not recoverable |
| Scope of 'necessary' costs under § 3663A(b)(4) | Internal investigation costs are necessary participation expenses. | Costs not necessary because not required or requested by investigators. | Costs not 'necessary' under the statute |
| Effect of 2008 amendment to discretionary restitution on the case | 2008 amendment could cover internal investigations for victims like identity theft. | Amendment limited to identity theft victims and does not apply here. | Amendment not applicable to Papagno's offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (Supreme Court 1993) (participate does not equal aid)
- Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court 1998) (participation defined by sharing; narrower meaning)
- Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (broader restitution interpretations in some circuits)
- Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2009) (restitution scope questioned; broader approach)
- Hosking, 567 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (restitution scope questioned; broader approach)
- Stennis-Williams, 557 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2009) (restitution scope questioned; broader approach)
- Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court 1996) (environmental cleanup analogy for cost recovery)
- Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court 1994) (statutory interpretation cautions about omissions)
- Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 827 (Supreme Court 2010) (statutory interpretation and intentional omissions)
- Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court 1996) (parallels on cost recoveries and remedial schemes)