[i]f MIA were a major player in the conspiracy, it would have been involved in a larger share of the number of allegedly rigged inquiries. The government introduced evidence of bids on 72 different projects. MIA submitted a total of eleven (11) bids on all of the projects. The 72 projects ultimately became jobs. The evidence at trial indicated that MIA participated in only eight total jobs.... In short, the government attempts to place responsibility on MIA’s shoulders for a volume of commerce that exceeded $5,000,000. The projects for which MIA allegedly sold pipe had a total of just $1,842,693 in volume of commerce allegedly affected by the conspiracy. MIA’s assertion is based on the claim that, while i L.Ed.2d 859 (1988); United States v. Tzakis, 736 F.2d 867, 871 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hand, 863 F.2d
holding trial court was without authority to order appellant to pay restitution for losses caused by offense for which appellant was not criminally responsible and deleting restitution as condition of probation holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing on defendant as condition of probation joint and several liability with codefendant for restitution of full amount of losses caused by their crime holding that probationer failed to satisfy two of the three prongs of the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition was reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum