United States v. Roberta Sheffield, 939 F.3d 1274

Roberta Sheffield pled guilty for participating in a scheme that generated thousands of fraudulent tax returns claiming a $1,000 education tax credit, producing $1,000 refunds per fraudulent return.
At sentencing the government submitted a spreadsheet listing each fraudulent return and calculated total loss of $3,461,638; Sheffield objected that the spreadsheet contained duplicate entries.
The government acknowledged possible duplication (including one admitted duplicate) but argued restitution need not be exact and placed the burden on Sheffield to identify specific errors.
The district court declined to require the government to correct the spreadsheet, overruled Sheffield’s objection, and ordered restitution in the spreadsheet amount.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for clear error and vacated the restitution order, holding that where each loss is a fixed, easily calculated amount ($1,000 per false credit), the government must produce accurate evidence and correct admitted errors.

Issue	Government's Argument	Sheffield's Argument	Held
Burden to prove restitution amount	Government met burden with spreadsheet and reasonable-estimate principle; defendant must point out inaccuracies	Spreadsheet contained duplicates; government admitted inaccuracies so amount unreliable	Government bears burden to prove loss by preponderance; admitted errors required correction
Use of reasonable estimate when exact amount available	Restitution need not be absolutely precise; reasonable estimate suffices in many cases	Where each refund is a fixed $1,000, total is a simple computation and requires precision	Reasonable estimates are not acceptable when loss is definite and easily calculable
Effect of government admitting duplication in its evidence	Even with some duplication, defendant should identify specific duplicates	Admission of duplication undermines the spreadsheet; government should correct it	Admitted inaccuracies meant the government could not satisfy its burden without correcting the spreadsheet
Right not to be sentenced on inaccurate information	Restitution award can stand despite minor error because payment unlikely	Defendant has right not to be sentenced based on inaccurate/unreliable information	Defendant's right protects against even small inaccuracies; remand required for accurate computation

United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 2015) (explains use and limits of reasonable estimates for restitution where exact figures may be unavailable)
United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711 (11th Cir. 2014) (government must prove loss by a preponderance; estimation permitted where difficulties exist)
United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000) (estimation of restitution allowed when exact amount is impossible to determine)
United States v. Gushlak, 728 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (reasonable approximation may suffice in inherently incalculable cases)
United States v. Caputo, 517 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (where each unit of loss is a fixed amount, restitution requires an exact figure)
United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2017) (restitution awards must be supported by reliable and specific evidence)
United States v. Giltner, 889 F.2d 1004 (11th Cir. 1989) (defendant has a right not to be sentenced on inaccurate or unreliable information)
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (observes high rate of uncollectible restitution orders; referenced for context on collection realities)