United States v. Robert Freeman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 955

Freeman pleaded guilty to one count of obstructing an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2)); district court sentenced him to 27 months and ordered $631,050.52 restitution as a condition of supervised release.
The four purported victims were church nominees who incurred debts to purchase assets for Freeman; the losses are tied to a broader church-scheme not charged as the offense of conviction.
The PSR stated no restitution and noted no specific victims; the government later submitted victim impact statements and a restitution memo.
The district court concluded restitution could be imposed under 18 U.S.C. §3583(d) as a condition of supervised release, referencing §3563(b)(2) and related provisions, and set monthly payment terms.
The government sought restitution amounts for the Clouds, Cecil Dixon, and Scott Washel; the court imposed these amounts without citing a statutory basis on the record.
Freeman appealed contending the purported victims are not victims of the offense of conviction and that the government failed to prove causation between the offense and the alleged losses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution as a condition of supervised release can be awarded to non-culpable victims.	Freeman argues victims aren’t victims of the offense of conviction.	Appellee contends victims are harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct.	Yes; restitution must be for victims of the offense, but the court abused discretion.
Whether the purported victims’ losses were caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense of conviction.	Freeman contends losses stem from conduct outside the offense of conviction.	Appellee asserts losses are tied to the offense conduct.	No; losses were not caused by the specific conduct underlying the offense.
Whether Oceanpro’s broadened notion of victim applies to supervised-release restitution here.	Freeman argues Oceanpro supports broader victim interpretation.	Appellee relies on Oceanpro to broaden who may be victim.	No; Oceanpro does not support restitution to these victims.

Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1990) (restitution limited to losses caused by offense conduct)
Batson, 608 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2010) (restitution for the offense of conviction, not related conduct)
Blake v. United States, 81 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 1996) (losses must be caused by conduct underlying the offense of conviction)
Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143 (4th Cir. 1999) (restitution cannot compensate for losses not caused by the offense)
Davis v. United States, 714 F.3d 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (restitution limited to losses from the offense of conviction)
Oceanpro Indus., Inc., 674 F.3d 323 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussed broader context of restitution but distinguished here)