In US v. Edwards, No. 08-30055, the government appealed from a sentence of probation and restitution imposed on defendant, who pled guilty to bankruptcy fraud and making a false statement to a bank. Defendant cross-appealed the restitution order on the ground that it was barred by collateral estoppel.
As stated in the decision: defendant "filled out a loan application in Montana and indicated that he had significant assets," but "did not disclose the $3 million FDIC obligation arising from his [prior] Arizona conviction."
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence on the grounds that 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in defendant's prior bankruptcy proceeding, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.