United States v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate ·

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) IN GENERAL. — Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter. (b) SCOPE AND NATURE OF ORDER.— (1) DIRECTIONS. — The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses as determined by the court pursuant to paragraph (2). (2) ENFORCEMENT. — An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A. (3) DEFINITION. — For purposes of this subsection, the term “full amount of the victims’ losses” includes any costs incurred by the victim for— (A) medical services relating to physical, psychiatric, or psychological care; (B) , physical and occupational therapy or rehabilitation; (C) necessary transportation, temporary housing, and child care expenses; (D) lost income; (E) attorneys’ fees, as well as other costs incurred; and (F) any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense. (4) ORDER MANDATORY. — (A) The issuance of a restitution order under this section is mandatory. (B) A court may not decline to issue an order under this section because of— (i) the economic circumstances of the defendant; or (ii) the fact that a victim has, or is entitled to, receive compensation for his or her injuries from the procee”

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

2. “(1) Congress passed the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 ("VWPA"), Pub.L. 97-291, 1982 S. 2420. The VWPA enacted the discretionary restitution provisions currently codified in [18 U.S.C.] § 3663, but did not contain § 3663's current definition of "victim” or the mandatory restitution provisions currently codified in [18 U.S.C.] § 3663A; (2) Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 , 1907-1910, which enacted § 2259, including the current definition of "victim” in § 2259(c); (3) Congress passed the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act ("MVRA”) as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 , which amended existing federal restitution laws and procedures. The MVRA added [18 U.S.C.] § 3663A to the United States Code and established the current definition of "victim” in § 3663A(a)(2) and 3663(a)(2) as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of a commission of an offense....” 110 Stat. 1228 , 1230.”

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

3. “If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.”

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