United States v. Munoz

The order issued today is amended. The following paragraph on page 4 is replaced to read:

Our position has proven controversial among some of our sister circuits. The Second and Third Circuits disagree with our holding in Daddato; in their view, our interpretation of the catch-all provision in § 3583(d) allows the district courts to circumvent the statutory limitations on restitution orders. See United States v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327, 335 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160, 169-70 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Gall, 21 F.3d at 112-13 (Jones, J., concurring). But see United States v. Love, 431 F.3d 477, 481 & n.15 (5th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing Daddato and Cottman by suggesting that because drug buy money was not restitution to a victim, ordering its repayment falls outside of the statutory restrictions on ordering restitution to victims under VWPA).