Robers v. United States (572 U.S. 639)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 5, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 639 · 134 S. Ct. 1854
- Docket
- No. 12-9012
- Argued
- February 25, 2014
- Decided
- May 5, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg (joined a concurrence), Justice Breyer (wrote), Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor (wrote a concurrence), Justice Kagan
Oral argument transcript and advocates · Opinion on Justia
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ROBERS v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12–9012. Argued February 25, 2014—Decided May 5, 2014 Petitioner Robers was convicted of a federal crime for submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications to two banks. On appeal, he argued that the District Court had miscalculated his restitution obli- gation under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U. S. C. §§3663A–3664, a provision of which requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to . . . the value of the property” less “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned,” §3663A(b)(1)(B). The District Court had ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling the houses that had served as collateral for the loans. Robers claimed that the Dis- trict Court should have instead reduced…
Excerpt of a 23,913-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.