Monday, February 10, 2014

United States v. Carter, No. 12-10549 (2-7-14)(Per curiam with Wallace and Berzon; dissent by Zouhary, D.J.). 

In a unique case regarding forfeiture and restitution, the 9th holds that under the terms and pronouncement at sentencing, restitution was satisfied by forfeiture of the defendant's assets.  The court and parties clearly understood at sentencing that the forfeiture would satisfy restitution.  The 9th goes on at length though to make clear that as a legal matter, restitution is different from forfeiture.  The two are separate.  One goes to the victim; the other to the government.  In another wrinkle, because the court did not make restitution part of supervised release, the defendant could not be revoked for nonpayment (although that issue is moot under this case.)  The 9th reverses the court's order for restitution of the difference between the forfeited value and the owing restitution.  The dissent would find that the sentencing was ambiguous as to whether the forfeiture was restitution, or whether it would be applied to restitution, in which case the defendant still owed about $66,000.


Post a Comment

<< Home