Filed: May 12, 2020
Latest Update: May 12, 2020
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: SUSAN J. BARBER. No. 20-71276 _ D.C. No. SUSAN J. BARBER, 3:12-cr-00678-MMC-1 Petitioner, OPINION v. USDC, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, JAMES B. CATLEDGE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEREK F.C. ELLIOTT, Real Parties in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Jud
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: SUSAN J. BARBER. No. 20-71276 _ D.C. No. SUSAN J. BARBER, 3:12-cr-00678-MMC-1 Petitioner, OPINION v. USDC, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, JAMES B. CATLEDGE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEREK F.C. ELLIOTT, Real Parties in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judg..
More
FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SUSAN J. BARBER. No. 20-71276
______________________________
D.C. No.
SUSAN J. BARBER, 3:12-cr-00678-MMC-1
Petitioner,
OPINION
v.
USDC, SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondent,
JAMES B. CATLEDGE; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA; DEREK F.C. ELLIOTT,
Real Parties in Interest.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 11, 2020 *
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the arguments of
the parties, and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining the amount of restitution to which Barber is entitled. The district
court's finding that the prior civil settlement reduced the amount of Barber's loss
was supported by the evidence and was neither an abuse of discretion nor legally
erroneous. See Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court,
435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006).
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DENIED.
2