Boyer v. Belleque, No. 10-35574 (10-28-11) (Gould with Fisher and Paez).

The 9th in habeas holds that the state proved attempted aggravated murder by sufficient evidence.

U.S. v. Newman, No. 10-10430 & US v. Tedesco, No. 10-10444 (Graber, Kozinski, O'Scannlain).

In these issue related cases, the 9th considers whether forfeiture of proceeds is the same as restitution. It is not. Indeed, the remedies serve different purposes, and seek to disgorge funds and to make whole. So what, concludes the 9th, if the defendant has to pay more; the defendant has harmed society and the costs are high. Here, the defendant in a bank robbery has to forfeit his proceeds and make restitution and the same in a bank fraud case, although the latter is remanded for fact-finding as to what exact amount should be forfeited.