IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10056
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AKEEM OMOMEGI YUSUF,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CR-251-G
- - - - - - - - - -
August 24, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Akeem Omomegi Yusuf challenges the district court's
restitution order. This court reviews particular awards of
restitution for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Chaney, 964 F.2d 437, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1992).
Under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3663 (VWPA), restitution for victims can be awarded only for
the loss caused by the specific offense that is the basis of the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10056
-2-
offense of conviction. United States v. Pepper, 51 F.3d 469, 473
(5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411
(1990)). To convict Yusuf of mail fraud, the Government had to
prove a scheme to defraud, rather than specific incidents of
fraud limited to individual investors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and
1342; see also Pepper, 51 F.3d at 473. Because a fraudulent
scheme is an element of Yusuf's offense of mail fraud, actions
pursuant to that scheme are conduct underlying the offense of
conviction. Pepper, 51 F.3d at 473 (citing United States v.
Stouffer, 986 F.2d 916, 928 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.
115 (1993)).
The indictment specifically defined Yusuf's scheme to
defraud in that it described the duration of the scheme, i.e.,
"beginning in early May, 1994, and continuing thereafter until on
or about July 12, 1994," and the methods used, i.e., caused to be
delivered an envelope containing a credit card in another
individual's name. Therefore, it is specific enough to satisfy
Hughey's requirement that sentencing courts focus on the specific
conduct underlying the offense of conviction. See Pepper, 51
F.3d at 473. Thus, the district court could order restitution
for the loss caused by this scheme.
AFFIRMED.