Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01325/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Gerald Rhodes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United Stat.es Olurt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 51988 

· ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

LEONARD GERALD RHODES, 

Defendant-Appellant~ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1325 

(D.C. No. 86-CR-268) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before LOGAN, TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.l.8(a). The cause therefore is 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

In September 1986, defendant-appellant Rhodes was indicted on 

five counts of conversion of collateral in which the Farmer's Home 

Administration (FmHA) had a security interest, in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 658. Each of the counts charged the conversion of 

numerous head of cattle in which th~ FmHA had a security interest. 

The first four counts charged transactions from November 4, 1981 

to October 14, 1982. The fifth count charged the conversion of 98 

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 1 
head of cattle on or about February 4, 1983. Defendant entered a 

plea of not guilty to all counts. 

In December 1986, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the 

fifth count of the indictment and to an information charging the 

conversion, by fraudulent endorsement on February 4, 1983, of the 

government's interest in a check drawn by a cattle auction company 

to the defendant and the FmHA. See 18 U.S.C. § 641. The plea 

agreement provided that the defendant stipulated that the loss to 

the government as the result of his unlawful activities was 

$82,299.08. 1 The government's statement concerning the factual 

basis for the plea established that the loss to the government 

from the unlawful acts in the first four counts of the indictment 

totaled $54,651.92. The loss to the government from the 

1 The plea agreement 

Plea Agreement: 

Record vol. 1, doc. 3. 

provided: 

Defendant agrees to plead guilty to 

Count V of the indictment filed 

against him on September 25, 1986, 

and to plead guilty to an 

information charging him with one 

misdemeanor count of theft of 

government property in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 641. Additionally, the 

defendant stipulates that the total 

loss to the government resulting 

from the defendant's unlawful 

conversion of livestock pledged to 

the government as collateral for 

loans is $82,299.08. The government 

agrees to move to dismiss the 

remaining four counts of the 

indictment upon the sentencing of 

the defendant pursuant to this 

agreement. Additionally, the 

government agrees to make no 

recommendation to the Court 

concerning the sentence to be 

imposed on the defendant. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 2 
transaction in the fifth count of the indictment and in the 

information was $27,647.16. 

In January 1987, defendant was sentenced to six months on the 

misdemeanor charge in the information and five years probation on 

the charge contained in count five of the indictment. One of the 

special conditions of probation was that the defendant make 

restitution of the $82,299.08 to the government. The trial judge 

did not specify whether the special condition of probation was 

pursuant to the Federal Probation Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3651, or the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), 

specifically 18 u.s.c. § 3579. 

Defendant then filed a motion to correct and reduce sentence 

in which he sought a reduced term of confinement and a reduced 

amount of restitution, from $82,299.08 to $27,647.16. Defendant 

suggested that if restitution had been ordered under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3651, 2 then the amount of restitution would be limited to losses 

attributable to counts of an indictment or information to which 

the defendant actually pleaded guilty. The loss attributable to 

count five and the information defendant pleaded guilty to is 

limited to $27,647.16. In the alternative, defendant argued that 

restitution under the VWPA (§ 3579) would be limited to offenses 

which occurred after January 1, 1983, because the restitution 

section of the Act applies with respect to offenses occurring on 

2 18 U.S.C. § 3651 allowed the court to require that a defendant 

make restitution "to aggrieved parties for actual damages or loss 

caused by the offense for which conviction was had .... " It 

has since been repealed. Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 212(a)(2), 98 

Stat. 1987 (1984) & Pub. L. No. 99-217, § 4, 99 Stat. 1728 (1985). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 3 
' . 

or after that date. Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, 

Pub. L. No. 97-291, §§ 5, 9(b)(2), 96 Stat. 1248, 1253-55, 1258; 

United States v. Martin, 788 F.2d 184, 188-89 (3rd Cir. 1986); 

United States v. Forzese, 756 F.2d 217, 222 (1st Cir. 1985). 

Under this alternative theory, defendant argues that the court 

could not order him to make restitution pursuant to the VWPA for 

$54,651.92 because that amount of the government's loss relates to 

transactions prior to January 1, 1983. 

The scope of our review of the trial court's denial of a Rule 

35 motion is narrow and, absent a showing of an abuse of 

discretion or a sentence not within legal limits, the trial 

court's decision concerning a sentence will be upheld on appeal. 

See United States v. MacClain, 501 F.2d 1006, 1013 (10th Cir. 

1974). This same standard applies when the defendant challenges a 

district court restitution order. United States v. Richard, 738 

F.2d 1120, 1121 (10th Cir. 1984)(review of restitution under 

VWPA). 

The circuits are divided on whether a district court may 

impose restitution under the VWPA for offenses or losses occurring 

prior to the effective date of the Act, January 1, 1983. The 

Sixth and Eleventh Circuits hold that if the offense on which the 

defendant pleads guilty occurred after January 1, 1983, and is 

part of a continuing conspiracy or a scheme to defraud, the court 

may impose restitution for conduct or offenses which occured prior 

to the Act. United States v. Purther, 823 F.2d 965, 968 (6th Cir. 

1987); United States v. Barnette, 800 F.2d 1558, 1571 (11th Cir. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 4 
1986), cert. denied, 107 s.ct. 1578 (1987). The Fourth and Third 

Circuits hold that losses occurring prior to January 1, 1983, are 

not subject to the Act. United States v. Oldaker, 823 F.2d 778, 

781 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Martin, 788 F.2d at 189 (3rd 

Cir. 1986). The Fifth Circuit has followed the Fourth and Third 

Circuits in part, and has ruled that losses arising from acts 

occurring prior to the effective date of the Act are not subject 

to the Act. United States v. Corn, No. 87-2722, slip op. at __ , 

(5th Cir. Jan. 21, 1988). We agree with the approach taken by the 

Fifth Circuit in Corn for two reasons: 1) it is most consistent 

with the plain meaning of the effective date provision in the Act; 

and, 2) the Act may be viewed as increasing punishment for 

offenses by allowing restitution independent of a condition of 

probation. See S. Rep. No. 532, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 30-33, 

reprinted in, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2515, 2536-39. 

We recognize that when the Act is used merely as means of imposing 

restitution as a special condition of probation, the second reason 

has less force because of the district court's power to impose 

restitution under§ 3651. 

The district court's oral sentence did not specify whether 

the court was ordering restitution pursuant to the older§ 3651 or 

the more recent§ 3579. Record vol. III at 12-14. We recently 

have held that it is the district judge's oral pronouncement of 

sentence at the sentencing hearing which controls. United States 

v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1451 (10th Cir. 1987)(en banc)("The 

sentence orally pronounced from the bench is the sentence."). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 5 
Although the broader restitution provisions of§ 3579 will be 

applied to most offenses occurring after January 1, 1983, § 3651 

had not yet been repealed and provided the statutory basis for the 

district court's power to impose restitution for offenses 

occurring during the time period in question, November 4, 1981, 

until February 4, 1983. It is of no moment that the sentencing 

judge, when asked later at the Rule 35 hearing, attributed her 

power to§ 3579, because it is the oral sentence which controls. 

We are satisfied that at the time of sentencing, the district 

judge had the power to order restitution, as a special condition 

of probation, in the amount of $82,299.08, in light of the 

defendant's stipulation to that amount as the loss suffered by the 

government. Thus, we decline to address whether a defendant may 

stipulate to losses occurring prior to the effective date of 

§ 3579 and have restitution ordered under§ 3579. Likewise, we 

decline to address defendant's claim that a sentence under§ 3579 

for losses occurring prior to its effective would be an 

application of an ex post facto law. 

A defendant may acknowledge the amount of loss caused by his 

conduct and be held to restitution for that amount, even if the 

amount relates in part to counts of an indictment to which the 

defendant did not plead guilty. United States v. Davies, 683 F.2d 

1052, 1054-55 (7th Cir. 1982); see also, United States v. Franks, 

723 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1983)(in a tax prosecution, an 

amount of restitution for unpaid taxes required as a special 

condition of probation must be acknowledged by the defendant, or 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 6 
conclusively established in a criminal proceeding or finally 

determined in civil proceedings). "The amount of restitution or 

reparations ordered may be only for such amount of actual damage 

or loss as has been ascertained with certainty by a court or by 

stipulation of the parties." United States v. John Scher 

Presents, Inc., 746 F.2d 959, 963 (3rd Cir. 1984). In his motion 

to correct the sentence, defendant sought to set aside the 

stipulation claiming that he did not understand its implications. 

After taking evidence at the Rule 35 hearing, the trial judge 

concluded that "restitution is in an amount stipulated by the 

defendant and should not be corrected." Record vol. IV at 65. We 

have reviewed the record, including the transcripts from the 

various hearings, and are satisfied that the district court made 

the defendant aware of the potential restitution in accordance 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(c)(l). At the change of plea hearing, 

the trial judge properly informed defendant that restitution was a 

sentencing option and the defendant indicated that he understood. 

Record volume II at 8-9. In finding against the defendant on this 

issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The 

restitution amount stands. 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-1325 Document: 010110027811 Date Filed: 02/25/1988 Page: 7