United States v. Holyoke
This text of 49 F. App'x 121 (United States v. Holyoke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
William Neal Holyoke appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). Holyoke contends that the district court erred in calculating the amount of restitution because the district court failed to offset the amount of money recovered ($588) from the original amount of loss to the victim ($4,075). Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, the statute governing in this case, restitution of lost property is calculated by offsetting the value of any [122]*122returned property against the original amount of loss. The government concurs with Holyoke that the casé should be remanded for recalculation of the restitution amount.
We conclude that the district court erred in determining the amount of restitution, and hold that a limited remand is necessary in order to correct the order of restitution. We affirm the conviction and sentence, but vacate the restitution order and remand for the limited purpose of correcting the award of restitution.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED for correction of the amount of restitution ordered.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
49 F. App'x 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-holyoke-ca9-2002.