Case Explained: United States of America Plaintiff— v. James Anthony Kirkwood Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-17

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order of restitution awarded to a robbery victim for lost income and mental anguish. The court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, does not authorize restitution for purely psychological harm or lost income absent a “bodily injury.” Regarding the award for mental anguish, the court applied de novo review because the district court sua sponte raised and resolved the legal issue of its own authority to award such restitution. The court found no statutory basis in the MVRA text for compensating mental anguish alone, noting that the statute’s provisions for medical and psychological care are conditioned on an underlying offense resulting in bodily injury. Regarding the award for lost income, the court applied plain error review because the defendant failed to object to this specific ground at sentencing. The court analyzed the statutory term “bodily injury” using ordinary meaning and contemporaneous dictionary definitions, concluding that the term refers to physical damage to the body and does not encompass purely mental trauma. The court rejected the Government’s argument that the inclusion of “psychiatric and psychological care” in the statute expands the definition of bodily injury, clarifying that such care is compensable only when necessitated by a physical injury. Citing consistent precedent across other circuits and Supreme Court authority regarding similar statutory language, the court determined the error was plain, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. The practical consequence is that the restitution award to the victim for both lost income and mental anguish is set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court to correct the judgment in accordance with this opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.