Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01818/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01818-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Randy Lee Vanhorn
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, Chief Judge of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1818

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Randy Lee Vanhorn, *

* TO BE PUBLISHED

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2005

Filed: March 1, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy Lee Vanhorn was convicted of mail fraud and money laundering. The

district court1

 imposed a sentence of 71 months in prison and $44,000 in victim

restitution. Vanhorn appealed, and we remanded for determination of a restitution

payment schedule, which the district court then set at 50% of the funds available to

Vanhorn while he is in prison. Vanhorn again appealed, and we affirmed his

conviction and sentence. United States v. Vanhorn, 344 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2003).

Appellate Case: 04-1818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872705 
-2-

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act provides that, upon notice “of any

material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the

defendant’s ability to pay restitution,” the sentencing court may “adjust the payment

schedule, or require immediate payment in full, as the interests of justice require.”

18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). While serving his prison sentence, Vanhorn was diagnosed as

HIV positive, and prison physicians prescribed what he describes as a life-saving

pharmaceutical cocktail of expensive drugs to treat his condition. Vanhorn then filed

a § 3664(k) motion with the district court, under seal, asking the court to adjust or

eliminate his current schedule of restitution payments. In support of the motion,

Vanhorn argued that his medical condition has caused a material change in economic

circumstances because he needs to save money while in prison so that he may

maintain this expensive drug regimen after his release. The district court denied the

motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, on the ground that “Vanhorn

has failed to show there has been a material change in his economic circumstances”

warranting a § 3664(k) adjustment.

On appeal, Vanhorn argues that the district court erred in concluding, without

an evidentiary hearing, that contracting HIV is not a material change in his economic

circumstances. He urges us to review this issue de novo, citing United States v.

Grant, 235 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2000). But in Grant, the court reviewed de novo an

issue of law in applying § 3664(k). The Second Circuit expressly recognized that it

normally applies the abuse of discretion standard to restitution orders that are based

upon the amount of victim loss, the financial resources of the defendant, and other

relevant factors. In this circuit, we review a district court’s initial restitution order for

clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Moyer, 313 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir. 2002).

After the initial order has become final, the district court is authorized by § 3664(k)

to adjust the payment schedule “as the interests of justice require.” We conclude that,

absent an error of law or clearly erroneous fact-finding, a district court’s exercise of

this authority should be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. We decline

to follow our unpublished opinion in United States v. Dye, No. 02-1184 (8th Cir. Oct.

Appellate Case: 04-1818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872705 
-3-

8, 2002), which mis-cited Grant for the proposition that § 3664(k) orders are, in

general, reviewed de novo.

In this case, Vanhorn’s motion disclosed no immediate change in his economic

circumstances. The cost of his HIV treatments are being paid by the government

while he is incarcerated, leaving the funds available to him in prison unaffected. It

may well be that Vanhorn’s future economic circumstances will be materially

adversely affected. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that this factor does not require an adjustment to the payments Vanhorn

must currently make to the victim of his crimes.

Finally, Vanhorn has moved for leave to file a supplemental brief arguing that

the district court violated the Sixth Amendment as construed in United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by enhancing his sentence and increasing his

punishment with restitution payments based upon facts not found by a jury. This

contention is without merit, and the motion is denied. Vanhorn’s conviction and

sentence have been finally affirmed on appeal. This is a post-judgment proceeding

grounded upon the district court’s statutory discretion to modify the restitution

portion of a final sentence “as the interests of justice require.” Neither Booker nor

the Sentencing Guidelines apply to this proceeding. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1.

The orders of the district court are affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1818 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872705