USA v. Yin

Sep 1, 2026
25-7561

MEMORANDUM*

Amanda Yin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to discontinue her restitution payments and money judgment obligations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Yin argues that the district court should have credited her restitution** judgment with the full amount of the funds that were recovered as a result of her cooperation. However, Yin was ordered to pay restitution jointly and severally with her two co-defendants “until full restitution is paid.” After the assets located by the government were liquidated, it adjusted all defendants’ restitution obligations using a standard, pro rata, proportional adjustment. Yin received the smallest adjustment because her restitution obligation was the lowest of the three, not because the calculation was incorrect. Yin provides no support for her assertion that she should have received a credit proportionate with her role in helping the government access the proceeds of the offense.

Yin’s challenge to the money judgment is also unavailing. The money judgment reflects the amount Yin is required to forfeit because she used some of the criminal proceeds as a down payment on a home; it is a separate debt distinct from restitution. See United States v. Carter, 742 F.3d 440, 446 (9th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).