United States v. Salti, 59 F.4th 1050

A 2014 ATM robbery produced a $72,000 victim loss. Salti (defendant) agreed at sentencing to pay $35,000 restitution; the judgment stated the $72,000 total loss and made Salti liable for $35,000 "joint and several" with co-conspirator Pattrick J. Towner.
Towner’s separate judgment ordered $72,000 restitution, joint and several with Salti; clerk administered both defendants’ payments.
The clerk apportioned each of Towner’s payments pro rata between the $35,000 joint portion and the $37,000 portion attributable solely to Towner.
After Salti paid $35,000, the clerk calculated he had overpaid by $2,487.87 (the portion of Towner’s payments credited to the $35,000) and sought to refund it; the government moved to block the refund so funds would go to the victim until the $72,000 loss was satisfied.
The district court held Salti had not overpaid and denied the refund; on appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed, adopting the view that apportionment combined with joint-and-several liability requires a defendant to pay his apportioned amount unless the victim has been fully compensated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Salti was entitled to a $2,487.87 refund credited from Towner’s payments	Refund would reduce funds available to victim; clerk should not reimburse until victim is made whole	Clerk’s pro rata credit meant Salti had paid his $35,000 and should receive the credited amount back	Court held no refund; Salti must pay his $35,000 (or stop when victim receives full $72,000)
Whether the district court impermissibly modified Salti’s sentence by refusing to credit co-defendant payments	Court’s interpretation of the restitution orders follows statutory scheme and precedent (not an unauthorized sentence modification)	Refusal to give credit changed the restitution obligation and improperly modified the sentence	Court found no abuse of discretion; decision was an interpretation of the restitution orders, not an unlawful sentence modification
Whether a hybrid (apportioned + joint-and-several) restitution scheme can be applied when co-defendants were sentenced by different judges	Hybrid approach is permissible and routinely applied; procedural/admin mechanics do not alter legal effect	Hybrid approach invalid when different judges sentenced co-defendants	Argument was forfeited/waived on appeal; court nonetheless noted hybrid orders are recognized and commonly interpreted to maximize victim recovery

United States v. Sheets, 814 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2016) (articulates three restitution approaches and supports a hybrid apportionment/joint-and-several model)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (restitution’s primary goal is remedial—making victims whole)
United States v. Harris, 7 F.3d 1537 (10th Cir. 1993) (recognizes combining joint-and-several liability with apportionment in restitution orders)
United States v. Serawop, 505 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) (district court exceeds jurisdiction when restitution exceeds the victim’s total loss)
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) (explains rationale for joint-and-several liability to protect victims from co-defendant insolvency)
United States v. Anthony, 942 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2019) (standard of review and principles governing restitution in sentencing)