⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears argument in United States versus Padilla, a criminal appeal concerning whether a federal district court properly ordered restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, known as the MVRA. Luis Padilla, a former law enforcement officer, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the civil rights statute that makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. The district court ordered him to pay thirty-five hundred dollars in restitution for future psychological treatment. Padilla argues on appeal, for the first time, that the MVRA does not apply because his offense is not a crime of violence as defined by federal law, and that even if it does apply, the record fails to support the award. The government counters that a conviction for using unreasonable force categorically qualifies as a crime of violence, that any error was not clear or obvious, and that the district court did not clearly err in calculating restitution. Because the crime-of-violence argument was not made in the district court, the panel reviews it for plain error. Padilla must show an error, that the error was clear or obvious, and that it affected his substantial rights. Even then, the Supreme Court has said, whether to correct the error is left to the discretion of the court of appeals, and that discretion should be exercised only when the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

United States v. Padilla (No. 25-30500) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 3, 2026.