United States v. Solis-Vasquez, 10 F.4th 59

On December 14, 2014, MS-13 members Enamorado and Pérez-Vásquez went to an apartment where Enamorado fatally shot Javier Ortiz and then shot witness Saul Rivera, who survived with $32,984.03 in losses (undisputed).
A jury convicted Luis Solís-Vásquez of RICO conspiracy and made a special finding that he was guilty as part of the RICO conspiracy of second-degree murder of Ortiz; no special jury finding addressed the Rivera shooting.
At sentencing the district court ordered mandatory restitution under the MVRA to Rivera; Solís-Vásquez was ordered to pay half ($16,492.01) based on a lesser role.
Solís-Vásquez argued he was not a MVRA "victim" because he did not directly harm Rivera, that Rivera’s injury was outside the scope of the conspiracy, and that aggravated RICO conspiracy is not categorically a "crime of violence."
The First Circuit reviewed preserved factual findings for clear error and the unpreserved crime-of-violence objection for plain error, concluded Solís-Vásquez failed to show plain error, and affirmed the restitution order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivera is a "victim" under the MVRA (directly/proximately harmed by defendant)	MVRA includes persons harmed by coconspirators; Collins controls	Rivera was not directly harmed by Solís-Vásquez; Collins should be overruled	Collins is binding; Rivera is a victim under MVRA; no clear error
Whether Rivera's injuries were within the scope or reasonably foreseeable in the conspiracy	Harm to a witness during an in-progress murder was reasonably foreseeable in the conspiracy	Rivera's shooting was outside the scope; Solís-Vásquez was a nonparticipant in that shooting	Court: the injury was reasonably foreseeable; no clear error
Whether aggravated RICO conspiracy (§1963(a)) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under §16(a) when jury finds second-degree murder	Aggravated RICO is divisible by predicate act; with a murder predicate it is a crime of violence	RICO conspiracy is indivisible and can encompass nonviolent conduct; aggravated RICO not categorically violent	Court did not decide on the merits; reviewed only for plain error and found no "clear or obvious" error in ordering MVRA restitution
Standard of review and sufficiency of defendant's burden on plain-error review	Government: substantial precedent supports district court; plain error not shown	Solís-Vásquez: error occurred and affected substantial rights	Defendant failed to show clear/obvious error; final two plain-error prongs not reached; restitution affirmed

United States v. Collins, 209 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (MVRA definition of "victim" includes persons harmed by coconspirators)
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (Supreme Court holding residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Tsarnaev, 968 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2020) (divisibility analysis for conspiracy with death-result sentencing element)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach principles)
United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (categorical-approach framework)
United States v. Nguyen, 255 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2001) (interpreting §1963(a) to require completed predicate act for life sentence)
United States v. Báez-Martínez, 950 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2020) (Massachusetts second-degree murder is a crime of violence under ACCA)