United States v. Padilla

Summary

The court affirmed the restitution order because Padilla forfeited his challenge to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and could not satisfy the fourth prong of plain-error review. The court also held that restitution for future psychological care was legally permissible and that the evidence sufficiently established the victim’s need for treatment and the causal connection to Padilla’s conduct. No separate opinions were filed.