United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
December 20, 2013
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 12‐3377 Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff‐Appellee, Eastern Division.
v. No. 89 CR 742‐1
LUIS A. MUNOZ, Charles P. Kocoras,
Defendant‐Appellant. Judge.
O R D E R
The order issued today is amended. The following paragraph on page 4 is
replaced to read:
Our position has proven controversial among some of our sister circuits.
The Second and Third Circuits disagree with our holding in Daddato; in their
view, our interpretation of the catch‐all provision in § 3583(d) allows the district
courts to circumvent the statutory limitations on restitution orders. See United
States v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327, 335 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Cottman,
142 F.3d 160, 169–70 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Gall, 21 F.3d at 112–13 (Jones, J.,
concurring). But see United States v. Love, 431 F.3d 477, 481 & n.15 (5th Cir. 2005)
(distinguishing Daddato and Cottman by suggesting that because drug buy money
was not restitution to a victim, ordering its repayment falls outside of the
statutory restrictions on ordering restitution to victims under VWPA).4
4
Despite distinguishing Daddato and Cottman, the Fifth Circuit did say that “it is probable that the
catch‐all provision would not allow a court to order in the first instance restitution for which Congress
implicitly has denied authorization by not allowing it under § 3563(b)(2).” United States v. Love, 431 F.3d
477, 483 (5th Cir. 2005).