At page 183 Sufficient evidentiary predicate for finding receipt of funds22 citing casesdistrict court will not be reversed for failure to state its reasons for ordering full restitution if record provides sufficient evidence for review
- United States v. Fox, 140 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 1998).published However, as we stated in United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482, 1493 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 253 (1997), on which Davis relies: district courts are not obligated to make explicit factual findings of a defendant's ability to…
- United States v. Exarhos, 135 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1998).published Hairston added, quoting United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1988): The decision to assign reasons is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, guided by this singular inquiry-- absent an assignment of…
- State v. Lucas, 496 S.E.2d 221 (W. Va. 1997).publishedFurther, as we stated in United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988): We are not persuaded that the district court must spread its findings and conclusions on the record in every ease in which full restitution is ordere…
- United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482 (11th Cir. 1997).published Conversely, "we will not uphold the district court's exercise of discretion if the record is devoid of any evidence that the defendant is able to satisfy the restitution order." United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 574-75 (11th Cir. 19…
- United States v. Schinnell, 80 F.3d 1064 (5th Cir. 1996).published United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988); Mitchell, 876 F.2d at 1183 (quoting Patterson ).
- United States v. Lawrence Lombardo, 35 F.3d 526 (11th Cir. 1994).publishedIf the record is insufficient, reasons must be assigned.” Id. at 1353 (quoting United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988)).
- United States v. Daniel v. Lane, 23 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 1994).publishedSee United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 618-19 (1st Cir.1993); United States v. Hairston, 888 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988).
- United States v. Charles E. Molen, A/K/A Charles E. Egbire-Molen, A/K/A Charles Eromosele Molen, United States of Am. v. Harrison Molen, 9 F.3d 1084 (4th Cir. 1993).publishedSee United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 618-19 (1st Cir.1993); United States v. Hairston, 888 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988).
- United States v. Paul J. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612 (1st Cir. 1993).published See United States v. Owens, 901 F.2d 1457, 1459-60 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Hairston, from 20 [percent] to a third" of the payoffs for himself, the district court's finding that appellant received $1,000 from this act had a suffic…
- United States v. Gary S. Stevens, 909 F.2d 431 (11th Cir. 1990).publishedUnited States v. Hairston, 888 F.2d 1349, 1353 (11th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988)). 10 *435 In our judgment, the record does provide an adequate basis for review of the amount of the re…
Show 7 more citing cases
- United States v. Donald A. Hairston, Sr., 888 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1989).publishedUnited States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988).
- United States v. Frasiel L. Hughey, 877 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1989).publishedUnited States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183 (5th Cir.1988).
- United States v. Leroy Mitchell, 876 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1989).publishedFurther, as we stated in United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-184 (5th Cir.1988): We are not persuaded that the district court must spread its findings and conclusions on the record in every case in which full restitution is order…
- United States v. Roy Ryan, 874 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir. 1989).publishedThe rule in this circuit was clearly stated in United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988): The decision to assign reasons is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, guided by this singular inquiry— abs…
- United States v. Rodriguez-Cerda, No. 99-40641 (5th Cir. May 30, 2000).unpublishedSee United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1988).
- United States v. Bennie Ray Hardeman, 933 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1991).published(district court will not be reversed for failure to state its reasons for ordering full restitution if record provides sufficient evidence for review)
- United States v. Peter Arvanitis, 902 F.2d 489 (7th Cir. 1990).publishedSee also United States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 183 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Purther, 823 F.2d 965, 969 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Atkinson, 788 F.2d 900, 902 (2nd Cir.1986).
At page 187 cited at this page1 citing case
- United States v. Schinnell, No. 94-11155 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 1996).publishedUnited States v. Patterson, 837 F.2d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 1988); Mitchell, 876 F.2d at 1183 (quoting Patterson).
v.
Ted Lee PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess, transport, dismantle, and dispose of stolen motor vehicles moved in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 511, 2312, 2313, and 2320, Ted Lee Patterson appeals, challenging that part of his sentence which orders restitution. Finding the restitution order consistent with prevailing law and supported by a factual basis of record, we affirm.
Patterson was indicted on one conspiracy count based on 27 overt acts, 13 of which also served as the basis for 13 substantive counts. The jury found Patterson guilty of conspiracy and not guilty of the substantive counts. After receipt of the presen-tence investigation report, made available to Patterson under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 and not challenged by him, the court sentenced Patterson to the custody of the Attorney General for five years and ordered restitution in the amount of $19,344.94. Citing ostensibly supportive authorities, Patterson challenges the order of restitution because the prosecutor did not request restitution and offered no proof of the amount of loss at the time of sentencing.
Patterson misperceives controlling law. Restitution was not ordered pursuant to the vintage provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3651, but, rather, was directed under the relatively new Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3579-80, Pub.L. 97-291 § 5(a), 96 Stat. 1253. Under that Act, the court may order “restitution to any victim,” § 3579, based on information gathered and furnished by the probation service, § 3580. Correlative amendments made to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the presentence report contain information about the financial harm or loss suffered by any victim. This report must be timely disclosed to the defendant who may challenge any factual inaccuracy contained therein.
The presentence report, forwarded under seal to this court as a part of the record before the trial court, reflects that the total loss sustained by the victims as a consequence of the criminal conduct was $41,034.83. The two named coconspirators, Rex Morgan Babb and Gerald David Nail, convicted in a companion case for the same criminal conduct, were sentenced to jail terms and each was ordered to make restitution of $10,844.94. Reducing the total loss of $41,034.83 by the restitution of the coconspirators, leaves a remainder of $19,-344.95, one penny more than the restitution imposed on Patterson.
Patterson complains that the district court erred because it did not assign specific reasons for the restitution order. Section 3580(a) directs the district court to consider certain factors in determining whether to order restitution. But the statute requires the court to assign reasons only if full restitution is not ordered. Section 3579(a)(2) provides:
If the court does not order restitution, or orders only partial restitution, under this section, the court shall state on the record the reasons therefor.
Five circuits have addressed the question whether reasons must be assigned in those instances in which full restitution is ordered. Three require factual findings; two do not. See United States v. Bruchey, 810 F.2d 456 (4th Cir.1987); United States v. Hill, 798 F.2d 402 (10th Cir.1986); United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475 (3d Cir.1985) (requiring factual findings); and United States v. Purther, 823 F.2d 965 (6th Cir.1987); United States v. Atkinson, 788 F.2d 900 (2d Cir.1986) (not requiring factual findings).
We take a middle course. We are not persuaded that the district court must spread its findings and conclusions on the record in every case in which full restitution is ordered. The decision to assign reasons is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, guided by this singular inquiry — absent an assignment of its reasons, does the record contain sufficient data for the appellate court to perform its mandated review? If the record provides an adequate basis for that review,[*184] the court néed not assign specific reasons for its decision to order full restitution. If the record is insufficient, reasons must be assigned.
In the case at bar the record adequately reflects the basis for the restitution order. The judgment is AFFIRMED.