Court of Appeals decided Vetter, Congress passed § 3663A. Section 3663A makes restitution mandatory in this case “[njotwithstanding any other provision of law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2000) (emphasis added). Thus, even if 11 U.S.C. § 727 purported to discharge Defendant’s debt to U.S. Bank and the exception in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) did not apply, Defendant would still be liable for restitution under § 3663A. See, e.g., Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18, 113 S.Ct. 1898, 123 L.Ed.2d 572 (1993) (“[I]n construing statutes, the use of such a ‘notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the ‘notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions of any other section.”); see also United States v. Hyde, 497 F.3d 103, 108 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041,
holding that another notwithstanding clause in the mvra overrode apparently contrary state law and federal bankruptcy law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added