U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 232— MISCELLANEOUS SENTENCING PROVISIONS

18 U.S.C. § 3664

Procedure for issuance and enforcement of order of restitution

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) For orders of restitution under this title, the court shall order the probation officer to obtain and include in its presentence report, or in a separate report, as the court may direct, information sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in fashioning a restitution order. The report shall include, to the extent practicable, a complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and information relating to the economic circumstances of each defendant. If the number or identity of victims cannot be reasonably ascertained, or other circumstances exist that make this requirement clearly impracticable, the probation officer shall so inform the court.(b) The court shall disclose to both the defendant and the attorney for the Government all portions of the presentence or other report pertaining to the matters described in subsection (a) of this section.(c) The provisions of this chapter, chapter 227, and Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure shall be the only rules applicable to proceedings under this section.(d)(1) Upon the request of the probation officer, but not later than 60 days prior to the date initially set for sentencing, the attorney for the Government, after consulting, to the extent practicable, with all identified victims, shall promptly provide the probation officer with a listing of the amounts subject to restitution.(2) The probation officer shall, prior to submitting the presentence report under subsection (a), to the extent practicable—(A) provide notice to all identified victims of—(i) the offense or offenses of which the defendant was convicted;(ii) the amounts subject to restitution submitted to the probation officer;(iii) the opportunity of the victim to submit information to the probation officer concerning the amount of the victim’s losses;(iv) the scheduled date, time, and place of the sentencing hearing;(v) the availability of a lien in favor of the victim pursuant to subsection (m)(1)(B); and(vi) the opportunity of the victim to file with the probation officer a separate affidavit relating to the amount of the victim’s losses subject to restitution; and(B) provide the victim with an affidavit form to submit pursuant to subparagraph (A)(vi).(3) Each defendant shall prepare and file with the probation officer an affidavit fully describing the financial resources of the defendant, including a complete listing of all assets owned or controlled by the defendant as of the date on which the defendant was arrested, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents, and such other information that the court requires relating to such other factors as the court deems appropriate.(4) After reviewing the report of the probation officer, the court may require additional documentation or hear testimony. The privacy of any records filed, or testimony heard, pursuant to this section shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible, and such records may be filed or testimony heard in camera.(5) If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. If the victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for an amended restitution order. Such order may be granted only upon a showing of good cause for the failure to include such losses in the initial claim for restitutionary relief.(6) The court may refer any issue arising in connection with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate judge or special master for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue by the court.(e) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense shall be on the attorney for the Government. The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant’s dependents, shall be on the defendant. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate shall be upon the party designated by the court as justice requires.(f)(1)(A) In each order of restitution, the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.(B) In no case shall the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or any other source be considered in determining the amount of restitution.(2) Upon determination of the amount of restitution owed to each victim, the court shall, pursuant to section 3572, specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid, in consideration of—(A) the financial resources and other assets of the defendant, including whether any of these assets are jointly controlled;(B) projected earnings and other income of the defendant; and(C) any financial obligations of the defendant; including obligations to dependents.(3)(A) A restitution order may direct the defendant to make a single, lump-sum payment, partial payments at specified intervals, in-kind payments, or a combination of payments at specified intervals and in-kind payments.(B) A restitution order may direct the defendant to make nominal periodic payments if the court finds from facts on the record that the economic circumstances of the defendant do not allow the payment of any amount of a restitution order, and do not allow for the payment of the full amount of a restitution order in the foreseeable future under any reasonable schedule of payments.(4) An in-kind payment described in paragraph (3) may be in the form of—(A) return of property;(B) replacement of property; or(C) if the victim agrees, services rendered to the victim or a person or organization other than the victim.(g)(1) No victim shall be required to participate in any phase of a restitution order.(2) A victim may at any time assign the victim’s interest in restitution payments to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury without in any way impairing the obligation of the defendant to make such payments.(h) If the court finds that more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.(i) If the court finds that more than 1 victim has sustained a loss requiring restitution by a defendant, the court may provide for a different payment schedule for each victim based on the type and amount of each victim’s loss and accounting for the economic circumstances of each victim. In any case in which the United States is a victim, the court shall ensure that all other victims receive full restitution before the United States receives any restitution.(j)(1) If a victim has received compensation from insurance or any other source with respect to a loss, the court shall order that restitution be paid to the person who provided or is obligated to provide the compensation, but the restitution order shall provide that all restitution of victims required by the order be paid to the victims before any restitution is paid to such a provider of compensation.(2) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of restitution shall be reduced by any amount later recovered as compensatory damages for the same loss by the victim in—(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and(B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent provided by the law of the State.(k) A restitution order shall provide that the defendant shall notify the court and the Attorney General of any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution. The court may also accept notification of a material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances from the United States or from the victim. The Attorney General shall certify to the court that the victim or victims owed restitution by the defendant have been notified of the change in circumstances. Upon receipt of the notification, the court may, on its own motion, or the motion of any party, including the victim, adjust the payment schedule, or require immediate payment in full, as the interests of justice require.(l) A conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to an order of restitution shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent Federal civil proceeding or State civil proceeding, to the extent consistent with State law, brought by the victim.(m)(1)(A)(i) An order of restitution may be enforced by the United States in the manner provided for in subchapter C of chapter 227 and subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title; or(ii) by all other available and reasonable means.(B) At the request of a victim named in a restitution order, the clerk of the court shall issue an abstract of judgment certifying that a judgment has been entered in favor of such victim in the amount specified in the restitution order. Upon registering, recording, docketing, or indexing such abstract in accordance with the rules and requirements relating to judgments of the court of the State where the district court is located, the abstract of judgment shall be a lien on the property of the defendant located in such State in the same manner and to the same extent and under the same conditions as a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction in that State.(2) An order of in-kind restitution in the form of services shall be enforced by the probation officer.(n) If a person obligated to provide restitution, or pay a fine, receives substantial resources from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment, during a period of incarceration, such person shall be required to apply the value of such resources to any restitution or fine still owed.(o) A sentence that imposes an order of restitution is a final judgment notwithstanding the fact that—(1) such a sentence can subsequently be—(A) corrected under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3742 of chapter 235 of this title;(B) appealed and modified under section 3742;(C) amended under subsection (d)(5); or(D) adjusted under section 3664(k), 3572, or 3613A; or(2) the defendant may be resentenced under section 3565 or 3614.(p) Nothing in this section or sections 2248, 2259, 2264, 2327, 3663, and 3663A and arising out of the application of such sections, shall be construed to create a cause of action not otherwise authorized in favor of any person against the United States or any officer or employee of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 97–291, § 5(a), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1255, § 3580; renumbered § 3664, Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(1), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1987; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3596, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4931; Pub. L. 104–132, title II, § 206(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1232; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(e)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1810.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsecs. (c) and (o)(1)(A), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

2002—Subsec. (o)(1)(C). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “subsection (d)(5)” for “section 3664(d)(3)”.

1996—Pub. L. 104–132 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to procedure for issuance and enforcement of orders of restitution for provisions relating to procedure for issuing orders of restitution.

1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647 substituted “3663” for “3579”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

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 Apr. 24, 1996, see section 211 of Pub. L. 104–132, set out as a note under section 2248 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective with respect to offenses occurring after Jan. 1, 1983, see section 9(b)(2) of Pub. L. 97–291, set out as a note under section 1512 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,109 cases (287 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Timothy Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 24× “The structure and language of the VWPA and MVRA are substantively the same, and the procedures for imposing and enforcing restitution pursuant to both statutes are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3664 . See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 (d), 3663A(d).”
United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 20× “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (" § 3664"), a dispute as to the proper amount of restitution must be resolved by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 20× “§ 2255 nor 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (k) allows a district court to rule on the legality of a restitution order, and because Ward was incarcerated in Arizona, it lacked jurisdiction to issue its prior Order, and accordingly vacated the Order.”
State v. Sweat, 561 N.W.2d 695 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 34× “20 indicate that subsection (13)(a) was patterned on 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (a) and is similar to former Wis.”
United States v. Anthony P. Perry v. Tryllous Hossler, Intervenor-Appellant, 360 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 16× “Intervenor Tryllous Hossler appeals a November 5, 2001 order vacating a judgment lien, entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, after Intervenor filed a judgment lien pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (m)(l)(B) of the Mandatory Victims…”
United States v. Michael J. Muzio, 757 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 31× “3d 1090, 1094 (11th Cir. 2002). Prior to Dolan, we held that the second ripening event would occur ninety days after entry of the initial judgment based on our interpretation of 18 U.”
Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 9× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (j)(2). 10 They *169 further provide: “A conviction of a defendant for an offense involving the act giving rise to an order of restitution shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent Federal civil…”
United States v. Lonnie Lillard, 935 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 17× “” 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (n) (emphasis added). The United States argued that § 3664(n) applies to pretrial detainees because they are in “federal custody.”
United States v. Nicole Grant, 715 F.3d 552 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 18× “Under the MVRA, for any defendant convicted of certain enumerated offense categories, including, as is relevant here, offenses against property, the sentencing court is required to order the defendant to pay restitution in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664 . See 18 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Leahy, 438 F.3d 328 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 11× “Both the VWPA and the MVRA are enforced via 18 U.S.C. § 3664 , which states in pertinent part: 7 Because, in our view, restitution under the VWPA and the MVRA is not the type of criminal punishment that evokes Sixth Amendment protection under Booker, we conclude that the amount…”
United States v. Jack A. Day, 418 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 14× “Consequently, he requested that the court order only nominal periodic payments towards his restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (f)(3)(B). In the Addendum to the PSR, the Probation Office acknowledged that it would be difficult for Mr.”
United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr., 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “The procedures to be followed in determining whether, and to what extent, to order restitution pursuant to the MVRA are those set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3664 . See id. § 3663A(d). Section 3664 requires, inter alia, that the sentencing court direct the probation officer to prepare a…”
Show all 2,109 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(0)(1)(D) — 1 case
United States v. Sherwood (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a) — 6 cases
United States v. Frank E. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996).
United States v. Ronald v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1989).
United States v. John Boyle, 10 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Marcus Taylor, 62 F.4th 146 (4th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Marcus Taylor (4th Cir. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d) — 3 cases
United States v. Michael A. Cannizzaro, 871 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Cannistraro, 694 F. Supp. 62 (D.N.J. 1988).
State v. Walker, 675 A.2d 499 (Me. 1996).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Grigsby, 665 F. App'x 701 (10th Cir. 2016).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) — 1 case
United States v. Angela Smiley (8th Cir. 2009).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) — 1 case
United States v. Hardy, 707 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Pa. 2010).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Divyesh Patel, 577 F. App'x 568 (6th Cir. 2014).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Joshua Sizemore, 850 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Marc Alexander (2d Cir. 2020).
United States v. Lanham (4th Cir. 1998).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(3)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. Willie A. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Duncan (4th Cir. 1998).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(g) — 1 case
Bradley, Allen & Stagg, LLC v. Reggie (E.D. La. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) — 1 case
United States v. Ketabchi (2d Cir. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) — 3 cases
United States v. William Rand, 924 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2019).
United States v. William Rand (5th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Sherwood (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(n) — 1 case
United States v. Myers (9th Cir. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o) — 1 case
United States v. Angel Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015).
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.