meets the statutory requirements for restitution is a question of law that is fully reviewable by the appellate court.” State v. Nelson, 796 N.W.2d 343, 346-47 (Minn.App.2011) (quotation omitted). A victim may request restitution if the defendant is convicted of a crime. Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(a). When considering restitution requests, courts look at, among other factors, “the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense.” Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1) (2012). This court has interpreted the statute to require that the claimed loss be “directly caused by the conduct, for which the defendant was convicted.” State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Minn.App.1999) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Olson, 381 N.W.2d 899, 901 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Willis does not dispute that P.H. should
holding that court cannot order restitution under the mvra to persons who are not victims of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted holding that restitution is proper for victims losses that are directly caused by appellants conduct for which he was convicted holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction