United States v. Juv. G.Z., 144 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Juv. G.Z., 144 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Patrick V., 374 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1149 “in these circumstances, restitution is mandatory, not discretionary.”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it · 1 listed here
  • United States v. Patrick V., 374 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2004).published
    Misunderstanding of the discretionary nature of restitution, even when a crime of violence has been committed, is revealed by the brief holding in United States v. Juvenile G.Z., 144 F.3d 1148, 1149 (8th Cir.1998), that when a juvenile ple…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
JUVENILE G.Z., Appellant
97-4322.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 21, 1998.
Published opinion
144 F.3d 1148
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 10187
1998 WL 254533
Robert A. Christenson, Sioux Falls, SD, argued, for Appellant., Julie. Irvine, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sioux Falls, SD, argued, for Appellee.
Arnold, Gibson, Fagg.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The district court sentenced G.Z., a Native American juvenile, to probation and ordered restitution payments after G.Z. pleaded guilty to burglarizing an occupied dwelling. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 5032 (1994); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 22-32-1 (1988). On appeal, G.Z. contends the district court improperly ordered full restitution without examining G.Z.’s financial resources. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a) (Supp. II 1996). G.Z. does not dispute he pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, and in these circumstances, restitution is mandatory, not discretionary. See id. § 3663A(a)-(c); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a) (1997); United States v. Graham, 982 F.2d 315, 316 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes). Thus, the district court was compelled to order full restitution without considering G.Z.’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (Supp. II 1996); United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1241 (8th Cir.1997). Although G.Z.’s plea agreement recommended the district court order restitution under § 3663, this section makes clear that discretionary restitution is not available for crimes of violence and § 3663A applies to these offenses. The district court applied the law correctly, and we affirm.