United States Sixth Circuit

In an obstruction of justice prosecution, the restitution portion of Defendant's sentence is affirmed, where 1) the district court's application of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to determine defendant's restitution obligation did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; and 2) the plea colloquy indicated that the parties intended to include a broader range of acts in the offense of conviction than those related solely to the conspiracy to obstruct the grand jury investigation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/21/2009
• Published 08/21/2009

Judges

• Before KEITH, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Roger L. Kleinman, McDonald Hopkins LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.  Brenda S. Shoemaker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Roger L. Kleinman, McDonald Hopkins LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.  Brenda S. Shoemaker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.