United States Ninth Circuit

Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in a bankruptcy settlement, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.

Appellate Information

• Argued 08/04/2009
• Decided 02/16/2010
• Published 02/16/2010

Judges

• Before HARRY PREGERSON, CARLOS T. BEA and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• William Mercer, United States Attorney, Billings, MT, for the appellant-cross-appellee., John Rhodes, Assistant Federal Defender, Missoula, MT, for the appellee-cross-appellant.