United States v. Ruff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The MVRA does not stipulate which party bears the burden of proving entitlement to an offset. The government bears the burden to prove the victim's loss, and the defendant bears the burden to prove financial resources and needs. On other matters, the burden 'shall be upon the party designated by the court as justice requires.' ... If [the defendant] believes he can establish excess recovery by the [victim], he bears the burden to initiate further proceedings regarding any restitution offset.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Boccagna · United States v. Howard

2. “In ordering restitution pursuant to the MVRA, a district court must order restitution in full without considering the defendant’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (f)(1)(A). Ruff does not object to paying restitution, but contends he is entitled to offset any proceeds law enforcement derived from the forfeited property, which have been remitted by the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund. Although the MVRA does not specifically address the relationship between restitution and forfeited funds, the MVRA does address the relationship between restitution and other sources of funds. Section 3664(f)(1)(B) declares: “In no case shall the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or any other source be considered in determining the amount of restitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (f)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Based on the plea agreement (wherein Ruff agreed to pay restitution for controlled buy money) and the plain language of this statutory subsection, we conclude the district court was required to order restitution based on the total funds the Iowa [Division of Narcotics Enforcement] expended on controlled buys, which the parties stipulated amounted to $9,985. The question remains, however, whether Ruff is entitled to offset the restitution assessment by the proceeds received from the administrative forfeiture proceedings. Several circuits have discussed whether the MVRA provides for restitution payments ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 526 F. Supp. 2d 378 - United States v. Brennan

3. “We decline to consider, in the first instance, the proffered explanation and supporting documentary evidence [about the value of offsets to restitution]. The duty to hear and determine evidentiary issues most appropriately rests in the district court.”). 10 . Bane contends that our decision in Huff establishes that the government bears the burden of proving offsets to restitution. But Huff merely states in dicta:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Bane