United States v. Eyraud, No. 14-50261 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to bank fraud after stealing $264,824.10 from her employer, RBS. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's restitution order. The court concluded that the textual reach of 18 U.S.C. 3663A(b)(4) manifestly covers the entirety of the attorneys’ fees awarded to RBS, not just those incurred leading up to and during the grand jury proceedings; the district court was manifestly aware of the law governing an award of attorneys’ fees; the district court properly concluded that RBS’s taxes and penalties were foreseeable and directly and proximately caused by defendant’s embezzlement, with no break in the chain of causation; the negotiated amount of the IRS’s abatement did not relieve the district court of its responsibility to determine the amount of loss; and in reducing RBS' requested attorneys' fees, the district court did not conclude in making this reduction that the fees incurred were not reasonably necessary, just that the billing rate charged was too high. The court also concluded that there was no statutory error and no violation of due process. The court rejected defendant's remaining argument under Paroline v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s restitution order in a case in which the defendant, who pled guilty to bank fraud, stole $264,824.10 from her employer Rhino Building Services (RBS). The panel explained that the restitution authorization in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers the entirety of attorneys’ fees awarded to RBS, not just those incurred leading up to and during the grand jury proceedings, where RBS incurred those fees as part of its continuing investigation of the extent of the defendant’s thievery. The panel held that the district court’s findings and determinations are fully supported by the evidence. The panel wrote that contrary to counsel’s claim about the district court’s supposed ignorance of the “reasonably necessary” test, the district court was manifestly aware of the law governing an award of attorneys’ fees. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that RBS’s taxes and penalties were foreseeable and directly and proximately caused by the defendant’s embezzlement. The panel wrote that the district court had no obligation to defer to any abatement of penalties negotiated between RBS and the IRS. The panel wrote that contrary to counsel’s argument, the district court did not, in reducing RBS’s requested attorneys’ fees by $53,148.50, conclude that the fees incurred were not UNITED STATES V. EYRAUD 3 reasonably necessary, just that the billing rate charged was too high. The panel rejected the defendant’s statutory and due process challenges to the district court’s reviewing counsel’s original billing invoices in camera. The panel rejected as foreclosed the defendant’s argument that after Paroline v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1710 (2014), a jury, not a judge, must make the factual findings that support an order of restitution.
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.