Sassine Razzouk v. United States

Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), courts must order the defendant to make restitution upon conviction for “an offense against property” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). In the decision below, the Second Circuit, adopting the approach of three other courts of appeals that generally applied a broader standard of review, declined to apply the categorical approach when determining if an offense was “an offense against property” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). Notably, the circuit cases relied upon by the Second Circuit preceded this Court’s decision in Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018).1 In reaching this conclusion, the Second Circuit recognized that that “[a]lthough these [statutory] signals are subtle, they suggest that a court may look to the manner in which a particular crime was committed to determine if it is an ‘offense against property’ such as would trigger a restitution obligation under the MVRA.” United States v. Razzouk, 984 F.3d 181, 188 (2d Cir. 2020). In doing so, the Second Circuit ignored other statutory signals that were not subtle at all. Including the clear signal that congress intended to limit the MVRA to certain specified offenses. Moreover, the Second Circuit’s decision ignored this Court’s warning that “to interpret the statute broadly is to invite controversy.” Lagos 138 S. Ct. at 1689 (emphasis added). The question presented is: Whether courts should apply the categorical approach in determining if an offense is an “offense against property” under the MVRA? 1 SeeUnited States v. Ritchie , 858 F.3d 201, 210 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Collins , 854 F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Sawyer, 825 F.3d 287, 292–93 (6th Cir. 2016).