Late Restitution Order Still Valid; $250/month Not Unreasonable
US v. Dolan, No. 08-2104, 5/27/09 (published)- Restitution order entered more than 90 days after sentencing, which ordered defendant to pay $250/month against total restitution of over $100,000, affirmed.
Defendant severely beat a hitchhiker on the Mescalero Reservation in New Mexico and was convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. This triggered the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. The total amount of restitution had not been determined at the time of sentencing, so this triggered the requirement of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act that the amount be determined within 90 days of sentencing. The amount was determined within that time, but for some reason the district court did not conduct a hearing on the matter until four months later. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, which the district court denied.
The COA also rejected the argument. The time limit is a claim-processing rule designed to protect victims by making sure they get restitution timely and to prevent defendants from dissipating their assets, not a jurisdictional bar that would reward defendants for governmental negligence by relieving them of their duty to pay restitution.
Defendant also contended that the $250 monthly payment was an unreasonable amount. The Tenth determined the amount was reasonable; even though defendant may have difficulty paying it, there was evidence suggesting it was not impossible. Even if it later proves to be, he can always ask the district court to amend the plan.
Defendant severely beat a hitchhiker on the Mescalero Reservation in New Mexico and was convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. This triggered the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. The total amount of restitution had not been determined at the time of sentencing, so this triggered the requirement of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act that the amount be determined within 90 days of sentencing. The amount was determined within that time, but for some reason the district court did not conduct a hearing on the matter until four months later. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order, which the district court denied.
The COA also rejected the argument. The time limit is a claim-processing rule designed to protect victims by making sure they get restitution timely and to prevent defendants from dissipating their assets, not a jurisdictional bar that would reward defendants for governmental negligence by relieving them of their duty to pay restitution.
Defendant also contended that the $250 monthly payment was an unreasonable amount. The Tenth determined the amount was reasonable; even though defendant may have difficulty paying it, there was evidence suggesting it was not impossible. Even if it later proves to be, he can always ask the district court to amend the plan.
posted by Anonymous at 9:08 AM
<< Home