U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 229— POSTSENTENCE ADMINISTRATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER B— FINES

18 U.S.C. § 3613A

Effect of default

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Upon a finding that the defendant is in default on a payment of a fine or restitution, the court may, pursuant to section 3565, revoke probation or a term of supervised release, modify the terms or conditions of probation or a term of supervised release, resentence a defendant pursuant to section 3614, hold the defendant in contempt of court, enter a restraining order or injunction, order the sale of property of the defendant, accept a performance bond, enter or adjust a payment schedule, or take any other action necessary to obtain compliance with the order of a fine or restitution.(2) In determining what action to take, the court shall consider the defendant’s employment status, earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness in failing to comply with the fine or restitution order, and any other circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant’s ability or failure to comply with the order of a fine or restitution.(b)(1) Any hearing held pursuant to this section may be conducted by a magistrate judge, subject to de novo review by the court.(2) To the extent practicable, in a hearing held pursuant to this section involving a defendant who is confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, proceedings in which the prisoner’s participation is required or permitted shall be conducted by telephone, video conference, or other communications technology without removing the prisoner from the facility in which the prisoner is confined.(Added Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 207(c)(4), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1239.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section to be effective, to extent constitutionally permissible, for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after Apr. 24, 1996, see section 211 of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 2248 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: United States v. Barry Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Barry Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “Second, Gewin claims the district court erred by holding him in civil contempt rather than acting under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A and 3615. Although this alleged error would have been most properly raised in the context of the 2007 proceedings, we broadly construe…”
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(1). But I am aware of no statute that requires the Attorney General to file such a motion.”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1514A(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e); 19 U.”
Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2016). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(l) (permitting a district court to revoke a defendant’s probation or term of supervised release, resentence a defendant, hold a defendant in contempt of court, enter an injunction against a defendant, or order a sale of property of a defendant in order…”
United States v. Nicole Grant, 715 F.3d 552 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A and 3614 concern a defendant’s default on a payment of a fine or restitution.”
United States v. Michael Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3rd Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “revoke probation or a term of supervised release, modify the terms or conditions of probation or a term of supervised release, resentence a defendant pursuant to section 3614, .”
United States v. Lonnie Lillard, 935 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2019). “The United States moved to seize Lillard’s funds pursuant to § 3664(n) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A, 3663A, 3664. Section 3664(n) of the MVRA provides that if a person “receives 4 UNITED STATES V.”
United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., Nutritional Prods. & Servs., Inc., & Animix, Inc., 151 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(l). This order was entered on December 12, 1997.”
United States v. Donald P. Carpenter, 320 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2003). “See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A & 3614 (describing the consequences of failing to pay court-ordered restitution).”
United States v. Ronald M. Turner, 312 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A, 3614. None of these are present here.”
United States v. John Perry, 714 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2013). “2009), remedies for noncompliance may not be subject to the strictures of 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(2), which produced complex fact issues in cases such as United States v.”
United States v. Henricks, 886 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2018). “On November 20, 2014, the government filed a motion for a default finding for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3613A and resentencing pursuant to 18 U.”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a) — 4 cases
United States v. Patrick (9th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Carney, 271 F. App'x 700 (10th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Lance Oak, 398 F. App'x 274 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Beau Diamond, 601 F. App'x 926 (11th Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(1) — 13 cases
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012). “18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(1). But I am aware of no statute that requires the Attorney General to file such a motion.”
United States v. Michael Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3rd Cir. 2022). “revoke probation or a term of supervised release, modify the terms or conditions of probation or a term of supervised release, resentence a defendant pursuant to section 3614, .”
United States v. Barry Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Second, Gewin claims the district court erred by holding him in civil contempt rather than acting under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A and 3615. Although this alleged error would have been most properly raised in the context of the 2007 proceedings, we broadly construe…”
United States v. Ronald Totaro, 91 F.4th 1263 (8th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Jerome Ford, 106 F.4th 607 (7th Cir. 2024).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(2) — 8 cases
United States v. Barry Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Second, Gewin claims the district court erred by holding him in civil contempt rather than acting under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A and 3615. Although this alleged error would have been most properly raised in the context of the 2007 proceedings, we broadly construe…”
United States v. Michael Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3rd Cir. 2022). “revoke probation or a term of supervised release, modify the terms or conditions of probation or a term of supervised release, resentence a defendant pursuant to section 3614, .”
United States v. John Perry, 714 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2013). “2009), remedies for noncompliance may not be subject to the strictures of 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(2), which produced complex fact issues in cases such as United States v.”
United States v. Montgomery, 532 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Holt, 664 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2011).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(l) — 11 cases
Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2016). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(l) (permitting a district court to revoke a defendant’s probation or term of supervised release, resentence a defendant, hold a defendant in contempt of court, enter an injunction against a defendant, or order a sale of property of a defendant in order…”
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012). “18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(1). But I am aware of no statute that requires the Attorney General to file such a motion.”
United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., Nutritional Prods. & Servs., Inc., & Animix, Inc., 151 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1998). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(l). This order was entered on December 12, 1997.”
United States v. Barry Gewin, 759 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Second, Gewin claims the district court erred by holding him in civil contempt rather than acting under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613A and 3615. Although this alleged error would have been most properly raised in the context of the 2007 proceedings, we broadly construe…”
United States v. Abdelhadi, 327 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. Va. 2004).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(b)(1) — 1 case
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). “§ 1514A(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e); 19 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(b)(l) — 1 case
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). “§ 1514A(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e); 19 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.