As such, that salary should be returned to the UN in the form of restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring the restitution order to include the value of the property on the date of loss); City of New York v. Bower, 1991 WL 19810 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1. 1991) (LMM) ("Bower received salary payments from the City in exchange for work which he failed to perform.

See, e.g., United States v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 512 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“Federal courts do not have inherent authority to order restitution. A product of the victims’ rights movement, the MVRA 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, is unlike other restitution statutes under which the award of restitution is discretionary”); United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (The MVRA’s mandatory restitution order applies here because “[t]he subset of crimes subject to mandatory restitution includes certain violent crimes and property crimes.”).

• Whether "determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process [in this case] to a degree that the need to provide restitution to [Goldman] is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process" such that restitution should not be ordered here. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)(B). • Whether apportionment "among . . . defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim's loss and economic circumstances of each defendant" is available and appropriate in this case.

18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 530-532 (D.C. Cir.) (general description of the requirements of § 3664), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 756 (2011); 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(d) (providing that an order of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A “shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664") (emphasis added). A sentence that imposes an order of restitution is a final judgment.

2222 cases. This case, however, is a civil action and 18 U.S. Code § 3663A is inapplicable. Because Defendant has not articulated a procedural basis for consolidation, her motion should be denied.3 IV.

In particular, the MVRA makes restitution a mandatory part of the sentence for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16, in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A). Here, the crimes of First Degree Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, and Attempt to Commit Manslaughter are “crimes of violence,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16.

In sum, the deal between Alcatel Lucent and the government allows the Company to conceal the information relating to its criminal conduct; resolve all criminal exposure through the payment of a fine below the legal required minimum; provides immunity for the companies from prosecution beyond paying these insufficient fines; avoid required presentence procedures; avoid a criminal conviction for Alcatel Lucent S.A. and thereby appropriate administrative restrictions applicable to convicted criminals; and further avoid legally required restitution. The Department’s Failure to Carry Out Its Responsibilities Case 1:10-cr-20907-MGC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 13 of 17 14   Under Section 18 U.S.C. § 3771, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, 18 U.S.C. § 3664, and Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Department, in connection with a plea and conviction for a Title 18 crime, is required to carry out a broad array of responsibilities designed to provide information to the Court as part of sentencing procedures and is obligated to affirmatively act to protect the victims of crimes. The foregoing statutes, among others, require the Department to, at a minimum: 1.

Case 1:13-cv-06326-TPG Document 418 Filed 11/17/15 Page 35 of 43 29 The restitution statute cited by the Government is inapplicable; it provides that restitution is only available where the victim is “directly and proximately” harmed by the offense at issue. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). (See Dkt.

Recognizing that the probability is high that as pro se litigants Plaintiffs may fail to properly support an assertion of fact or fail to properly address Defendant C&S’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), Plaintiffs remind this honorable court that as the guardian of the United States Constitution it has an obligation to protect and defend Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and Plaintiffs move this Honorable court to in the alternative to considering Plaintiffs request to make a cross/counter motion for summary judgment to issue any other appropriate order pursuant to Rule 56(e)(4) and/or to grant summary judgment for a nonmovant (Plaintiffs in this case) pursuant to Rule 56 (f)(1). Plaintiffs are entitled to relief and restitution pursuant to the FDCPA, as crime victims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3663A and as victims of a conspiracy to deprive them of the civil rights they entitled to relief pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Because the crimes perpetrated Case 3:15-cv-00703-B Document 66 Filed 08/12/15 Page 25 of 38 PageID 3117 against them are not isolated instances but part of a pattern of crimes perpetrated against numerous other LNV/Beal/LPS victims by a corrupt organization and because those crimes are consistent with racketeering activities pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1961 Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages.

Thus, the privately-funded victims of fraudulent trades that were charged under Title 15 are not clearly entitled to restitution. The Government has considered whether the MVRA’s broad definition of “victim”1 could be read to 1 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2): For the purposes of this section, the term “victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or Case 3:13-cr-00019-JCH Document 290 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 4 - 2 - authorize restitution to all of Litvak’s victims, regardless of whether they were TARP-funded or privately-funded. Under that theory, the privately-funded victims would be entitled to restitution because they were the victims of the same scheme, charged under Title 18, that defrauded the TARP-funded victims.