Whether the controlling standard of review for modification under 18 USCA § 3664(k) should be de novo or abuse of description

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the controlling standard of review for modification under 18 USCA § 3664(k) should be de novo or abuse of description. The Panel Opinion recognized the Circuit-split that has arisen over this issue: “Our sister circuits seem to take different positions on whether to conduct appellate review de novo or for abuse of discretion.” 26 F.4th 720, at 723 (footnotes citing cases omitted). 2. Whether a sentencing court modifying the judgment pursuant to § 3664(k) must articulate its consideration of the factors under § 3664(f)(2). The Panel Opinion noted a Circuit-split. In the Fourth Circuit, the controlling case is United States v. Grant, where the court held that “it is not sufficient that the district court merely consider [the defendant’s financial resources, assets, projected income and other financial obligations under § 3664(f)(2)]; the court must actually demonstrate its consideration of them on the record.” 715 F.3d 552, 558 (4th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). By contrast, the Panel Opinion specifically rejected the holding of Grant: F [E]ven if the § 3664(f)(2) factors did apply to modifications under § 3664(k), Grant conflicts with this court’s precedents. The Fifth Circuit holds that district courts “need not make specific findings [when originally imposing restitution] if the record provides an adequate basis to support the restitution order.” United States v. Blocker, 104 F.3d 720, 737 (5th Cir. 1997). 26 F.4th 720, at 723 (emphasis added)