Portland Federal Restitution

The lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys understand that financial penalties in white collar crime cases can be as dire as the potential for a federal prison sentence. Portland restitution attorneys need to know the complex intricacies of federal restitution, forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, and other federal laws to best protect their clients’ interests.

The Portland, Oregon federal restitution lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys have the skills and knowledge to help you navigate the difficulties that often arise out of restitution orders. We know that federal restitution can be daunting, and threaten an individual’s home, retirement, and business.

In this article, our Portland federal restitution team addresses recent developments in restitution case law and how it could impact Oregon federal cases. Specifically, Evergreen Attorneys explains how restitution may be improperly calculated by a district court and what impact that can have on a white collar crime defendant on appeal or after serving their sentence.

If you are facing serious federal restitution or forfeiture issues in Portland, Oregon, call the experienced criminal defense team at Evergreen Attorneys at (303) 948-1489 or complete a contact form on our website today to see how we can help.

What is Federal Restitution?

Federal restitution is a court order requiring a defendant to pay money to the victims of a crime to cover losses directly resulting from criminal conduct. Restitution orders are mandatory under the MVRA (Mandatory Victims Restitution Act) in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Under the MVRA, when sentencing a defendant, the district court:

[S]hall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense, or if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.

18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). A “victim” is defined by the MVRA as:

[A] person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. In the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the victim’s rights under this section, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.

When ordering federal restitution, the district court is required to determine whether there are any victims who suffered loss as a result of the offense of conviction and, if so, the amount of restitution required to make the victim “whole” or return them to the same position they were in before the criminal conduct.

Unlike fines that a court may impose, restitution generally cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. And, unless specifically ordered otherwise, restitution amounts accrue interest until paid in full. Most importantly, the government can aggressively collect restitution through wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, or property liens. For many people, restitution becomes the longest-lasting part of their sentence.

What “Losses” Cannot be Counted for Federal Restitution

In a recent case out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States v. McCormack, No. 24-2500 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2025) addresses the problems many sentencing courts run into when ordering a criminal defendant pay federal restitution.

In that case, McCormack stole several dozen firearms from two gun stores. He pleaded guilty to stealing guns from federal firearms licensees and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 371, and agreed to pay restitution. At McCormick’s first sentencing hearing, the district court’s restitution order did not account for any insurance payments or guns returned to the stores. McCormick appealed and the Third Circuit remanded the case for the district court to recalculate the restitution owed by subtracting any reimbursements.

On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the restitution issue. Based on evidence presented by the store owners and federal agents, the court ordered McCormack to pay over $57,000 in restitution. McCormick again appealed and argued that the court “double-counted” the store owner’s losses by counting the value of the stolen guns and the lost sales of the same guns.

Under the MVRA, the Third Circuit found that the Act can require returning stolen property, paying its value, or paying victims for costs they incurred while helping the government in investigating the crime. However, the Act does not allow victims to recover consequential damages, or the same loss twice.

Here, the Third Circuit found the district court made both errors. The restitution award by the district court covered the full retail value of the stolen guns, not just what the store had paid for them but also what the stores would have earned by selling them. In addition, the stores closed for a week after the theft and the restitution award included lost income for that time period. However, the Third Circuit concluded, “the week they had to close, each store would likely have sold some of the same guns for which they were already getting reimbursed. Those lost sales were double counted. And lost sales of other weapons are consequential damages not covered by the MVRA.”

The government conceded that the district court should not have compensated the store owners for their lost income. Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the lost-income component of the restitution award and remanded again to the district court.

How McCormick compares in Portland

Since McCormick is a Third Circuit case, it is not binding in Portland, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the arguments in McCormick can be persuasive in making federal restitution arguments in the Ninth Circuit.

Under Ninth Circuit case law and the MVRA, “a dispute as to the proper amount of restitution must be resolved by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Andrews, 600 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e). The government bears the burden of proving that a person is a victim for restitution purposes and the amount of loss.

Similar to McCormick, the Ninth Circuit has held that restitution can be ordered for lost revenue caused by harm to a person but it is not recoverable for lost revenue caused by harm to property. For example, in the case of United States v. Brock-Davis, the Ninth Circuit held under the MVRA, restitution requiring the defendant to pay for the cost of cleaning a motel room used as a methamphetamine lab was appropriate; however, the motel owner could not receive restitution for lost income (and asbestos testing during cleaning) were not recoverable. United States v. Broack-Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2007).

Why Restitution Cases are Complicated

As the above cases show, district judges don’t always get restitution right. Restitution errors can occur in multiple ways including calculation of loss amounts and what losses are permissible under the MVRA.

A skilled federal restitution lawyer is necessary to challenge improper calculations and push for accurate loss figures; advocate for reasonable payment plans that account for a defendant’s financial circumstances; navigate appeals and post-conviction remedies; help to protect assets from aggressive government collection tactics; and negotiate with the government for fair and just resolution when full repayment is not an option.

Federal Restitution Lawyers in Portland

Federal restitution before and after sentencing is incredibly complex. What many lawyers don’t understand is that restitution is not a side issue but often one of the most significant consequences of a conviction. Without proper legal guidance, individuals can be left paying more than they legally owe, or trapped in repayment plans that make rebuilding their lives nearly impossible.

Federal restitution involves a mixture of civil and criminal law, and you need to be prepared to fight for your rights to a fair restitution outcome. The lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys are here to provide the knowledge, strategy, and advocacy necessary to protect your rights and financial future.

Contact the Portland federal criminal restitution lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys today if you need to discuss your restitution options.

Call (303) 948-1489, email us at [email protected], or fill out our contact form today to discuss your situation.