Ryan and Elizabeth’s client was charged with Felony Robbery due to taking a man’s cell phone. Our client was also accused of damaging a different man’s truck, but that conduct was never charged. At sentencing, the government tried to require our client pay the restitution for the damage to the truck. We opposed that at the sentencing hearing and scheduled a restitution hearing. At the restitution hearing, the government argued that we failed to follow the statute requiring our client sign an affidavit laying out the restitution facts. We sent the judge and prosecutor our written response, arguing that the statute didn’t apply because restitution wasn’t even on the table since the truck incident was never charged. The judge agreed. The judge did not require our client to pay restitution and so our client saved more than $2,700.