United States Tenth Circuit

A restitution order under the Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act (MVRA), imposed after defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter in the death of his three-month-old daughter, is affirmed as: 1) the structure of section 3663A(b)(1)-(4) does not preclude the restitution award; 2) the use of the word "reimburse" in the statute does not preclude recovery of future income lost as a result of the victim's death; 3) with regard to the award of lost income to the victim of a crime of violence, the MVRA is unambiguous, and thus the rule of lenity does not apply; 4) an award of lost future income for a deceased infant is not precluded by the MVRA as speculative; and 5) the order's restitution methodology was not an abuse of discretion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/25/2007
• Published 10/26/2007

Judges

• HENRY, Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, HENRY, and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• G. Fred Metos, McCaughey & Metos, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant., Diana Hagen, Assistant United States Attorney (with Stephen J. Sorenson, Acting United States Attorney, on the brief), Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.