C. The Restitution Award
Restitution is generally available for losses stemming from the conduct of the offense of conviction. Hughey, 495 U.S.  at 420 [(1990)] ("[T]he loss caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction establishes the outer limits of a restitution order."); see also United States v. St. Junius, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25155, at *52-53 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2013) (substitute opinion on petition for rehearing) (holding, on plain-error review, that restitution is limited to losses stemming directly from the offense of conviction).
Beyond that, the restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, does not authorize restitution orders compelling payment to the IRS for a Title 26 offense. See United States v. Stout, 32 F.3d 901, 905 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that § 3663 only permits separate restitution orders for offenses under Title 18 or 49 and vacating restitution award ordered for offense under Title 26). Section 3663 does, however, allow the sentencing court to "order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement." § 3663(a)(3); see also Stout, 32 F.3d at 905 n.5.
A sentencing court may also require restitution to the IRS for a Title 26 offense as a condition of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3) (authorizing a sentencing court to impose "any condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation in section 3563(b) and any other condition it considers to be appropriate"); Miller, 406 F.3d at 329 ("[A]lthough . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3663 [ ] does not expressly cover tax offenses such as that under which Miller was convicted, § 3583(d) authorizes such restitution as a condition of Miller's supervised release."). Section 3583(d) allows the sentencing court to impose a condition of supervised release requiring restitution to the IRS without the defendant's agreement, but only if the restitution is "limited to losses from the crime of conviction." United States v. Nolen, 523 F.3d 331, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Stout, 32 F.3d at 904 (vacating restitution order and remanding for resentencing where defendant never expressly agreed to pay restitution and noting that "[s]entencing courts are permitted to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release to the extent agreed to by the government and the defendant in a plea agreement." (citations omitted))
Campbell acknowledges that the plea agreement allowed the consideration of relevant conduct for the purposes of calculating her guideline range, but not for determining the amount of restitution. Campbell contends that the "general statement in the plea agreement that § 3663 would apply did nothing to extend her liability beyond Hughey," i.e., that restitution would be limited to the loss associated only with the offense of conviction. Because the count of conviction to which she pleaded guilty states a loss of only $7,500, Campbell contends that her restitution should be limited to that amount.
The Government asserts that the plea agreement's reference to § 3663 gave the district court authority to order restitution in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. According to the Government, the plea agreement provided that relevant [*14] conduct set forth in the second superseding indictment and "any other applicable conduct" would be used in the calculation of Campbell's sentence, including the amount of restitution she owed. The Government further argues that Campbell acknowledged that relevant conduct would be considered in the calculation of her restitution in her factual basis, at rearraignment, and at sentencing. Alternatively, the Government contends that the restitution order was proper as a condition of Campbell's supervised release.
We hold that Campbell did not agree to the imposition of restitution beyond the amount stemming from the offense of conviction. Contrary to the Government's assertion, Campbell did not acknowledge at rearraignment that relevant conduct would be included in the calculation of restitution. The transcript merely reflects that Campbell acknowledged that she "may additionally be required to reimburse any victim for the amount of loss under the victim's restitution law if that law is at all applicable to these proceedings." The factual basis, like the plea agreement, generally mentions relevant conduct when calculating Campbell's guideline calculation. However, there is no mention of relevant conduct in connection with restitution, thus distinguishing Campbell's case from those where this Court has held the district court properly considered relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in the restitution order. See United States v. Simmons, 420 F. App'x 414, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (per curiam) (rejecting defendant's argument that restitution should be limited to offense of conviction because plea agreement provided that defendant would pay restitution and "'that restitution [was] not limited to the amounts charged in the Indictment'"); Miller, 406 F.3d at 329-30 (upholding restitution order that was not limited to the offense of conviction because defendant agreed in plea agreement that restitution would include "all relevant conduct, not limited to that arising from the offenses of conviction alone" (internal quotation marks omitted)). At oral argument, the Government conceded that Campbell's plea agreement did not expressly provide for the consideration of relevant conduct in calculating restitution. Ultimately, the restitution order was unlawful: 18 U.S.C. § 3663 does not authorize restitution orders compelling payment to the IRS for a Title 26 offense, and 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) only permits restitution to the extent agreed to in the plea agreement. Thus, the district court here was authorized to order "an award of restitution only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction." Hughey, 495 U.S. at 413.