Barber v. USDC, San Francisco, No. 20-71276 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution to which petitioner is entitled. Furthermore, the panel held that the district court's finding that the prior civil settlement reduced the amount of petitioner's loss was supported by the evidence and was neither an abuse of discretion nor legally erroneous.

Download PDF

FILED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: SUSAN J. BARBER. ______________________________ No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-71276 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00678-MMC-1 SUSAN J. BARBER, Petitioner, OPINION v. USDC, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, JAMES B. CATLEDGE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEREK F.C. ELLIOTT, Real Parties in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 11, 2020 * San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the arguments of the parties, and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution to which Barber is entitled. The district court's finding that the prior civil settlement reduced the amount of Barber's loss was supported by the evidence and was neither an abuse of discretion nor legally erroneous. See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DENIED. 2

Primary Holding

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.