U.S. v. Robers

Dist. Ct. erred, in part, in entering $218,952 restitution order as part of defendant's sentence on charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud arising out of defendant's role in submitting home mortgage applications containing inflated income and asset representations. Dist. Ct. improperly included attorney fees and unspecified fees in restitution award, but properly found that relevant "offset value" of subject real estate used to establish restitution award was eventual cash proceeds recouped following foreclosure sale rather than fair market value of property on date of foreclosure as urged by defendant. Dist. Ct. could also include in restitution order all expenses related to sale of said properties.