of irrelevant to the analysis” after the Assistant United Statds Attorney stated “This isn’t an ARPA case”), and the assessment that took place • was detailed and anything but hypothetical, see Aplee.’s Supp. App., Vol. II, passim (detailed assessment of damages). Although the damages assessment included ARPA estimates, id. at 294-301, those estimates were not the basis for the restitution order. Thus, Quarrell is inapposite. Second, the MVRA provides- that, in all cases, a victim must be reimbursed “for ... expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution, of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(l). And we have specifically recognized that the government’s investigatory costs can constitute actual losses subject to restitution. See Quarrell, 310, F.3d at 681 (<HOLDING>). We thus reject Mr, Wells’s assertion that the
holding that there was no abuse of discretion for denying the motion to change venue because although there had been some publicity surrounding the murder an independent review of the record demonstrates that there was no difficulty in seating the jury holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding there was no abuse of discretion in including in a restitution order 300 for the services of a law enforcement officer in investigating damage to archaeological sites holding that abuse of discretion in denying a 60b motion is established only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court and there is no abuse of discretion if a reasonable person could disagree as to the propriety of the courts action holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative