FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641998
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Silver

No. 8641998 · Decided July 13, 2007
No. 8641998 · Ninth Circuit · 2007 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 13, 2007
Citation
No. 8641998
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** The Government appeals the district court’s decision not to order defendant Michael Silver to pay restitution to the identified victims of his mail fraud. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We vacate the portion of the Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order that provides that Defendant’s payment of restitution is suspended, and we remand for entry of an order requiring payment of restitution. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) eliminates the district court’s discretion with respect to restitution by defendants convicted of certain crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). The statutory directive is clear: the “[sentencing] court shall order ... that the defendant make restitution to the victim[s]” for “an offense against property under this title ... including any offense committed by fraud or deceit.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). We have held that “if the MVRA applies, a restitution order is mandatory regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay.” United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir.2003); see United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 950 , 123 S.Ct. 2625 , 156 L.Ed.2d 641 (2003); see also United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that orders of restitution are unaf *793 fected by sentencing guideline changes worked by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). Defendant Silver was convicted of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . The district court is required to order restitution unless one of the two statutory exceptions applies. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). Neither of them does. The victims of the defendant’s fraud and the amounts of their losses have been identified. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(A). Nor does this case involve any complex issues related to the cause or amount of the victims’ losses. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(B). The losses are already determined. VACATED in part and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** The Government appeals the district court’s decision not to order defendant Michael Silver to pay restitution to the identified victims of his mail fraud.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** The Government appeals the district court’s decision not to order defendant Michael Silver to pay restitution to the identified victims of his mail fraud.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Silver in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 13, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641998 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →