ovided in law," thus recognizing that there would be numerous situations when it would be impossible for a victim to receive restitution. See In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 563 (2d Or. 2005). The statute under which Petitioners urge this Court to award restitution does not make the government liable for

cuit. At the time, three other Circuits had all issued unanimous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mow. Co.. 409 Fad 565, 512 (2d Cir. 2005): Kenna v. US. Dui. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca.. 436 5' al loll, 1017 (9th Cir. 2036): In re Wal

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering in

tlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2). W.R. me, 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff, there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in W.R. me, here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epst

restitution measures against nonconvicted defendants." In re W.R. Hu fir Asset Mgt. Co., LLC , 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. Huff, petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste

r restitution measures against nonconvicted defendants." hi re W.R. Huff Asset Mgt. Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. Huff petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i