In The Courts

In United States v. Adams, 2004 WL 435053 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2004), the Fifth Circuit held that the restitution properly awarded under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act should be defined by the scope of the conduct agreed to in the plea agreement rather than by the conduct charged in the indictment. In Adams, the defendant had been charged with conspiracy to mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate carrier fraud after allegedly orchestrating car accidents to collect insurance proceeds. The defendant refused to agree that the accidents had been staged, but pleaded guilty to a narrower scheme of exacerbating the damage after accidents had occurred. The district court imposed restitution for the full value of the damage caused by the car accidents. The Fifth Circuit vacated the restitution order, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to order restitution only for the amount of the value of the damage done to the vehicles after the accident. The court explained that for the purposes of punishment in the wake of a guilty plea, the scope of an underlying scheme should be defined by the parties themselves.