18 U.S.C. § 3614
Resentencing upon failure to pay a fine or restitution
For a prior section 3614, applicable to offenses committed prior to
1996—Pub. L. 104–232, § 207(c)(5)(A), inserted “or restitution” after “fine” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–232, § 207(c)(5)(B), inserted “or restitution” after “fine”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–232, § 207(c)(5)(C), added subsec. (c).
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–132 to be effective, to extent constitutionally permissible, for sentencing proceedings in cases in which defendant is convicted on or after
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: United States v. Rutigliano
United States v. Rutigliano (2018)
“The argument fails because only a willful failure to pay restitution can result in incarceration, see 18 U.S.C. § 3614 (b), and the law specifically prohibits incarceration solely on the basis of a defendant's financial inability to pay, see id.”
United States v. Pedro Carrillo Payan (1993)
“74 18 U.S.C. § 3614 (Resentencing Upon Failure to Pay a Fine) appears in large.”
United States v. Rascoe (1990)
“§ 3613 ; but 18 U.S.C. § 3614 pro *566 vides the Government an alternative to collecting the fine pursuant to § 3613.”
United States v. Colasuonno (2012)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3614 (b)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and resen-tencing Colasuonno to a term of incarceration and supervised release on the substantive tax crime of conviction.”
United States v. Lonnie Lillard (2019)
“See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3614 , 3613A, 3615. To ensure “fair warning” of § 3664(n)’s scope, we must resolve ambiguities in § 3664(n) “in favor of the defendant.”
United States v. Kenneth O. Lippitt (1999)
“Soon after, the United States moved to resentence Lippitt pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3614 , which allows the court to increase the sentence (up to the maximum amount which might originally have been imposed) of any defendant who knowingly fails to pay a delinquent fine.”
United States v. Dubose (1998)
“If a defendant defaults on a restitution order, the court has nine options: revoking supervised release or probation, modifying the terms or conditions of supervised release or probation, resentencing the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3614 , holding the defendant in contempt of…”
United States v. Robert Morales, Sr. (2003)
“Morales argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3614 establishes a method by which a district court may lower a sentence despite the existence of Fed.”
United States v. Eugene Chusid (2004)
“): (1) an order, dated June 14, 2003, finding him in contempt for his failure to satisfy the district court’s prior order, dated July 17, 2001, imposing restitution and fines (“the Contempt Order”) and (2) an amended judgment in a criminal ease, dated May 28, 2003, resentencing…”
United States v. Hickson (1986)
“” See also 18 U.S.C. § 3614 (Title 18, USCA, p. 400).”
United States v. Johnston (2010)
“After Johnston failed to pay any of the restitution amount by the deadline provided in the plea agreement, the government filed a motion to resentence him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3614 . Finding that Johnston’s total failure to pay restitution by the deadline was willful, the…”
United States v. Timilty (1998)
“Alternatively, the government could seek to have a defendant resentenced to “any sentence which might originally have been imposed” for failure to pay, 18 U.S.C. § 3614 , held in criminal default and sentenced up to a year, see 18 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.