United States v. Price, 906 F.3d 685

David Price convicted by jury of a heroin distribution conspiracy and related charges; district court sentenced him to 37 years imprisonment and ordered $11,693 restitution for funeral expenses.
Government presented evidence at sentencing that Price murdered co-conspirator Greg Holden to prevent his cooperation; court found murder by a preponderance and applied an obstruction enhancement.
Restitution awarded to Holden’s fiancée Roshunda King ($4,720), Holden’s mother ($4,050), and Ferguson Funeral Service ($2,923) for out-of-pocket funeral expenses (including $1,070 earmarked for a future headstone purchase).
Price did not object at sentencing; appellate review is for plain error.
The presentence report erroneously counted two short-term probation misdemeanor convictions in Price’s criminal history category; defense had agreed at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to order restitution to co-conspirator’s family for funeral expenses	Price: 18 U.S.C. § 3663 bars restitution tied to an offense participant; Holden was a participant so restitution to his family is prohibited	Government/District Ct: Family members are victims in their own right, directly harmed by Price’s murder, so restitution is authorized	Affirmed — restitution to King, Holden’s mother, and funeral home is permitted because their losses were direct, not derivative of Holden’s, and thus not barred by the offense-participant prohibition
Inclusion of two misdemeanor probation convictions in criminal history score	Price: These convictions resulted in probation of one year or less and thus should not count under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), so criminal history category was erroneous	Government: Concedes error but argues no prejudice because Guidelines range was life regardless; district court imposed a below-Guidelines 37-year sentence	Affirms — error acknowledged but not prejudicial (no effect on substantial rights), so no remand

United States v. Walker, 746 F.3d 300 (7th Cir.) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing issues)
United States v. Kruger, 839 F.3d 572 (7th Cir.) (prejudice and Olano standard explained for sentencing plain error)
United States v. Randle, 324 F.3d 550 (7th Cir.) (restitution without statutory basis affects substantial rights)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (framework for plain-error review)
United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314 (7th Cir.) (discussion of actual loss for restitution in fraud context)
Mendez v. Perla Dental, 646 F.3d 420 (7th Cir.) (issue waived if first raised in reply brief)
Rock Island Bank v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 692 F.2d 1100 (7th Cir.) (distinguishing derivative vs independent claims)