United States v. Yijun Zhou

The majority holds that the district court did not plainly err in ordering restitution for the Colorado Target charges because “the text [of Count One] is broad enough to cover both the Nordstrom charges and the Target charges.” Maj. Op. at 1013. Because I disagree with the majority’s strained reading of the indictment—especially in light of the rest of the record—I respectfully dissent.

As the majority notes, the district court “may award restitution ... only for loss that flows directly from ‘the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.’” United States v. May, 706…