Lаvon Stennis-Williams (“Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The district court 2 sentenced her to 30 months imprisonment and ordered restitution in the amount of $56,134. Defendant appeals her sentence and the restitution award. We affirm.
I.
Defendant, an Omaha attorney, was appointed personal representative of the estаte of Robert Nelson, who died on February 7, 2002. She defrauded Mr. Nelson’s estate of $238,340. Robin Nelson, Mr. Nelson’s daughter and sole heir, and the estate incurred $72,794 in attorney and accоuntant fees to discover and investigate Defendant’s malfeasance. After Ms. Nelson filed a civil suit in Douglas County, Nebraska, Defendant voluntarily paid $25,000 in partial restitution. In May 2007, the parties reached a settlement agreement, pursuant to which Defendant paid an additional sum of $190,000. The settlement agreement also contained a covenant not to prosecute.
Unbeknownst to Defendant, the United States Attorney’s office was investigating her conduct for mail and wire fraud. A federal grand jury indicted Defendant in November 2007, сharging her with two counts of mail fraud and four counts of wire fraud. In February 2008, she pled guilty to one count of mail fraud. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated the еstate’s loss at $238,340, requiring the addition of 12 offense levels and resulting in a Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2B1.1(a)(2), (b)(1)(G) (setting a base offense level of six and adding 12 levels where the loss is more than $200,000 but lеss than $400,000). Defendant objected, arguing that the loss calculation should have taken into account the amounts she reimbursed the estate during the civil lawsuit, requiring the addition of only four offense levels and resulting in a Guidelines range of four to ten months. See id. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(C) (add four levels where the loss is more than $10,000 but less than $30,000). The district court denied Defendant’s objection regarding the lоss calculation and sentenced her to 30 months imprisonment:
I find that the proper loss amount is $238,340 for offense level calculations .... There is no factual dispute that the loss or intended loss was $238,340, despite the fact that Ms. Stennis paid it back before she was prosecuted. The public interest looks to the intended harm, and that’s what I ought to conсentrate on, as I understand *929 the law, so that is what I am going to concentrate on.
(Sentencing Tr. 52, June 27, 2008.)
The United States also moved for restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, asserting that Defendant should reimburse the estate for attorney and aсcountant fees the estate paid to investigate Defendant’s conduct. Defendant objected, arguing that Ms. Nelson and the estate effectively waived their right to restitution for the fees when they agreed to settle the civil case, in which recovery for attorney’s fees was permissible, for a specified sum. The district court denied Defendant’s objection and ordered her to pay $56,134 in restitution. 3
Insofar as restitution is concerned, I’m troubled by the settlement agreement and the covenant not to prosecutе. It is conceivable that there was a breach of the settlement agreement by the settling parties on the victim’s side.... [But] the victim is out, there is no question, the fees have beеn paid, the victim is out $56,134. Whether she gave that up, or her lawyers gave that up for her in the settlement agreement, and there has been some breach of it, ... that’s to be resolved by the state court, not by me. It’s clear that the victim is out that money and needs to be repaid and I so order.
(Sentencing Tr. 52-53.) Defendant brings this appeal.
II.
“We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and аpplication of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.”
United States v. Holthaus,
“Loss means the greater of eithеr actual loss or intended loss.”
Holthaus,
Defendant’s intentional theft of $238,340 from the estate is an “intended loss,”
see id.
§ 2B.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)), and the payments she made to the estate during the civil suit do not diminish her
*930
culpability for the underlying fraud,
see, e.g., United States v. Parsons,
III.
We review for clear error the district court’s finding as to the proper amount of restitution.
United States v. Chalupnik,
Under the MVRA, “[t]he order of restitution shall require thаt [the] defendant ... reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and
other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation
оr prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.”
Id.
§ 3663A(b)(4) (emphasis added). However, “Restitution may only be awarded ‘for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of the conviction.’ ”
United States v. DeRosier,
IV.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable Richard G. Kоpf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
. The district court calculated the restitution award by adding $238,340, the amount Defendant stole from the estate, and $72,794, the fees the estate incurred investigating Defendant's conduct, for a total of $311,134. Then, the court subtracted amounts the estate had already been reimbursed, including $190,000 from the civil settlement, $25,000 from the Defendant prior to settlement, and $40,000 from the Nebraska State Bar Association, for a balance of $56,134.
. Both Defendant and the United States filed motions to expand the rеcord on appeal to include additional evidence of the parties’ conduct vis-á-vis the settlement agreement. Like the district court, we express no opiniоn as to whether any of the parties to the civil case breached the settlement agreement. Such matters are outside the scope of this criminal appeal, and both parties' motions are denied.