*1 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Alvin K. Hellerstein, Judge, denying defendant’s postsentence motion to reduce or eliminate his remaining restitution obligation by the amounts recovered by his crime victim in its civil litigation against other persons, see 18 U.S.C. §§3663A, 3664. The district court denied the motion on the ground that defendant did not show that those recoveries were for the same loss he caused or that the victim has been fully compensated for the loss he caused it. Defendant contends principally that the court erred in ruling that he had the burden of proving that the losses were the same, and in not concluding that the victim’s recoveries reduced or eliminated defendant’s restitution obligation.*2
We conclude that the district court’s ruling that defendant had the burden of proof on these issues was within the court’s discretion and that there were no errors in the court’s ruling.Affirmed.AMALYA KEARSE, C.J.Defendant Jason Smathers, who was convicted in 2005, following his plea of guilty, of conspiring, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371, to misappropriate and sell property of America Online (“AOL”), and was ordered to, inter alia, pay AOL restitution in the amount of $84,000, appeals from a June 22, 2016 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Alvin K. Hellerstein, Judge, denying his motion, made pro se, for a reduction of his remaining restitution obligation by amounts recovered by AOL in civil litigation against other persons. The district court ruled that Smathers failed to show that those amounts recovered by AOL were compensation for the same loss caused by Smathers or that AOL has been fully compensated for the loss caused by Smathers. On appeal, Smathers, represented by counsel, contends principally that the district court erred in imposing on him “the full burden” (Smathers brief on appeal at 26) of proving that AOL’s recoveries were for the same loss caused by Smathers and that the court clearly erred in finding that the losses were not the same. He also complains that the district court denied his motion without a hearing. Concluding that his contentions lack merit, we affirm.
