United States v. Kovall, No. 15-50419 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit joined the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that a victim may not directly appeal the restitution component of a criminal defendant's sentence under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. In this case, defendants were convicted of charges related to their involvement in a scheme to receive kickbacks based on overpayments made by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. The district court ordered defendants to pay restitution to the Tribe. The Tribe subsequently challenged the "direct loss" and the "other fees" amount of the restitution order. The panel held that the Tribe had Article III standing to appeal an award under the MVRA, but that neither the MVRA nor the Due Process Clause confers a right on the Tribe to challenge restitution awards except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3). Accordingly, the panel dismissed the appeal.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel dismissed appeals by third-party plaintiff Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (“the Tribe”) from restitution orders handed down as part of the sentences imposed on two criminal defendants. The panel held that the Tribe has Article III standing to appeal an award under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, but that a victim may not directly appeal such an award. The panel held that neither the MVRA nor the Due Process Clause confers a right on a victim to challenge restitution awards except as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND V. KOVALL 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.