[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10267
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00295-JSM-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LATASHIA GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 21, 2016)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Latashia Green appeals the restitution portion of her sentence imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 641 and 2. The amount of the restitution is the only question. On appeal,
Green argues that she was entitled to an offset on her restitution order for
government benefits she would have received in the absence of the illegal conduct.
“We review de novo the legality of an order of restitution, but review for
abuse of discretion the determination of the restitution value of lost or destroyed
property.” United States v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008).
“We review for clear error factual findings underlying a restitution order.” Id. To
be clearly erroneous, the finding of the district court must leave us with a “definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010).
The Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act (MVRA) requires the district court
to order restitution “in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the
court.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). “A restitution award must be based on the
amount of the loss actually caused by the defendant’s conduct.” United States v.
2
Huff, 609 F.3d 1240, 1247 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original) (quotation
omitted). The government bears the burden of proving the loss amount by a
preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e); Valladares, 544 F.3d at
1269. “Restitution is not intended to provide a windfall for crime victims but
rather to ensure that victims . . . are made whole for their losses.” Huff, 609 F.3d at
1249 (quotation omitted). For this reason, “any value of the services or items
received by the victim . . . must be offset against the restitution order.” Id. at 1248.
We have said that the defendant must offer evidence about the value of an offset.
See United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 828-29, 829 n.10 (11th Cir. 2013).
The government met its burden of establishing the victims’ losses by
soliciting testimony from an employee of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. The witness testified to the amounts paid by government
agencies to Green as a result of her false statements on benefit applications and
testified that she would not have received those payments had the agencies been
aware of the false statements. Green offered no evidence to disprove this
testimony or otherwise to prove her entitlement to an offset in restitution. On this
record, the district court did not commit clear error by accepting the testimony
from the government witness and finding that Green would have been ineligible
for government benefits due to her conduct. It was not an abuse of discretion for
the district court to use those factual findings to set restitution at $85,363: the
3
uncontested amount paid to Green by the victims during the months included in the
indictment.
AFFIRMED.
4