United States v. Roxanne Eyraud
809 F.3d 462
9th Cir.2015Background
- Roxanne Eyraud embezzled $264,824.10 from her employer, Rhino Building Services (RBS), by forging payroll checks and recording false IRS tax payments in Quickbooks, causing $82,348.90 in unpaid taxes reflected as paid.
- RBS discovered part of the theft in 2008; Eyraud repaid $150,000 to conceal some losses but hid additional thefts that surfaced in 2010.
- Eyraud pleaded guilty to bank fraud; sentencing resulted in time served, supervised release, and a restitution order for $425,445.44 including unrecovered theft, tax deficiencies/penalties, forensic accounting fees, and $173,797.32 in attorneys’ fees.
- RBS sought attorneys’ fees and produced invoice summaries and an in‑camera submission of original billing records; the district court reviewed originals in camera and reduced requested fees after lodestar analysis.
- Eyraud appealed, raising six issues centered on attorneys’ fees (scope and necessity), in‑camera review/due process, calculation of awarded fees, causal attribution for tax penalties and IRS abatement, and whether Paroline requires a jury for restitution fact‑finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States/RBS) | Defendant's Argument (Eyraud) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys’ fees awarded under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) were properly included and reasonably necessary | Fees are recoverable as investigation/prosecution expenses and as foreseeable, direct costs of Eyraud’s concealment and continuing investigation | Fees should be limited to those directly tied to grand jury/prosecution tasks; contest scope and reasonableness of rates/amounts | Affirmed: MVRA covers the full attorneys’ fees awarded where fees were part of RBS’s continuing investigation and were direct, foreseeable losses; district court’s reductions were appropriate (lodestar/rate adjustments) |
| Whether denial of access to original billing invoices violated statute or due process | In‑camera review protected privileged material; statutory procedure (§ 3664(d)(4)) permits in‑camera filings | Denial of originals deprived Eyraud of statutory right to review and constitutional due process | Affirmed: § 3664(d)(4) authorizes in‑camera submissions; defendant received underlying factual information (summaries/declaration) and meaningful opportunity to contest; no due process violation |
| Whether the district court erred in calculating fees (alleged missing amounts) and reducing fees | Court correctly performed lodestar analysis, considered original invoices, and explained reductions | Claimed the court failed to account for $85,402.32 and misapplied reductions | Affirmed: record shows court accounted for submissions and made a rate/lodestar reduction; counsel failed to timely contest amounts at hearing |
| Whether RBS’s tax penalties/interest were proximately caused by Eyraud and whether IRS abatement controls restitution amount; whether Paroline requires jury findings | Tax deficiencies and penalties flowed directly from Eyraud’s theft and false Quickbooks; IRS abatement is not binding on restitution determination | Argued intervening events or IRS abatement should limit restitution; Paroline requires jury fact‑finding | Affirmed: Eyraud’s fraud was the proximate cause of RBS’s tax losses; court need not defer to IRS abatement negotiated with RBS; Paroline does not require a jury for restitution findings in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2001) (victim may prove its own restitution claim and submit materials in camera)
- United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004) (broad view of recoverable investigation costs, including private attorneys’ fees)
- United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonably necessary standard for investigation costs)
- United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (proximate causation in restitution where initial fraud set chain of losses in motion)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (addressed causation and restitution principles; not controlling to require jury here)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (framework cited regarding judicial fact‑finding; court reaffirmed limits on applying Apprendi to restitution)