to award restitution. Moreover, the decision to impose restitution generally does not turn on the victim’s injury, but on the penal goals of the State and the situation of the defendant. Kelly, 479 U.S. at 52, 107 S.Ct. 353 (1986). Although the Court grounded its opinion on federalism concerns, some courts have found the wording of this section of Kelly broad enough to reach restitution ordered pursuant to the VWPA. See United States v. Caddell, 830 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir.1987) (“[T]he language in the [Kelly] opinion extends generally to penal sanctions of restitution without regard to whether the court imposing the sanction is a state or federal court.”). However, in Towers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed that § 523(a)(7) “offers r.W.D.Pa.1993) (<HOLDING>). We find the reasoning in Towers persuasive.
holding without comment that kelly applies to restitution paid to a victim bank holding restitution paid to a local department store is not dischargeable pursuant to kelly holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not holding no restitution hearing is mandated when defendant did not object to order of restitution or request a hearing recognizing that the test adopted in kelly applies to rulings on evidence