Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00042/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00042-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zeynettin Karim Cetin
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZEYNETTIN KARIM CETIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cr-00042-TEH-1 

RESTITUTION ORDER

This matter came before the Court on March 7, 2016 for a hearing on restitution. 

(Docket No. 96.) Having carefully considered the parties’ statements at the hearing, the 

victim’s declaration submitted by the Government, and other relevant evidence in this 

case, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant pay restitution to the victim, V.K., in the 

amount of $1,595.59, to be paid pursuant to the payment schedule set forth below. 

BACKGROUND 

 Based upon the comprehensive factual background set forth in the Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR,” Docket No. 82), and the victim’s declaration (“V.K. Decl.,”

Docket No. 95) the Court makes the following findings of fact which are relevant to the 

appropriate calculation of restitution:

 On December 31, 2014, V.K., an employee of the Social Security Administration, 

was assisting Defendant with questions about a check when Defendant became agitated 

and spit into the slot of the window behind which V.K. was sitting. PSR at 5. The 

majority of the saliva entered V.K.’s mouth. Id. Defendant was subsequently detained, 

and during the handcuffing process he yelled that he had AIDS and Hepatitis C.1 Id. V.K. 

 

1 According to defense counsel, Defendant “has never suffered from or being 

diagnosed with HIV,” but he yelled that he had the virus because he was afraid that the 

security guards handcuffing him would “beat him severely.” Def.’s Sentencing Memo at 5 

[Under Seal] (Docket No. 86). 

Case 3:15-cr-00042-RS Document 97 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

was informed of this statement, and was released from work for the remainder of the day 

to seek evaluation at a hospital regarding possible exposure to HIV and Hepatitis C. Id. 

On September 14, 2015, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 

111(a)(1), assault on a federal officer; and (2) 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146(a)(1) and 

3146(b)(1)(A)(2), failure to appear after pre-trial release. (Docket No. 78.) On December 

22, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant to prison for 15 months followed by 3 years of 

supervised release, and imposed a special assessment fee of $200. (Docket No. 90.) The 

Court waived the fine owed by Defendant because of Defendant’s inability to pay.

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”) makes restitution to victims 

mandatory for specified crimes, including “a crime of violence . . . in which an identifiable 

victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss.” 18 U.S.C. §§

3663A(c)(1)(A)(i), 3663A(c)(1)(B). Courts are required to “order restitution to each 

victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3664(f)(1)(A). The MVRA provides that “[t]he burden of demonstrating the amount of the 

loss sustained by a victim . . . shall be on the attorney for the Government” and that “[a]ny 

dispute . . . shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3664(e). The government must also show by a preponderance of the evidence that an 

individual is a victim of the crime of which the defendant was convicted, and that the 

victim’s losses were caused by the defendant’s offense conduct. United States v. Gossi, 

608 F.3d 574, 579 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1074-75 (9th 

Cir. 2008). The MVRA provides that a PSR should contain all of the “information 

sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in fashioning a restitution order.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(a).

///

///

Case 3:15-cr-00042-RS Document 97 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION 

The relevant offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), 

assault on a federal officer. The victim of the offense is V.K. PSR at 6. As a “crime of 

violence,” restitution is mandatory for this offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). 

Furthermore, “in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim,” the 

Defendant shall “reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such 

offense.” Id. § (b)(2)(C). 

The Court finds that V.K.’s lost income was caused by the offense. After 

Defendant spit on V.K. and saliva landed in V.K.’s mouth, it came to V.K.’s attention that 

Defendant had stated he was HIV-positive. Despite the fact the Defendant has never 

contracted HIV, the Court finds that due to the seriousness of the virus, it was reasonable 

for V.K. to seek preventative treatment as a result of Defendant’s crime and subsequent 

statement. 

V.K.’s declaration states that the extreme nausea she suffered as a side effect of the 

preventative HIV treatment made it “impossible for [her] to work for a month.” V.K. 

Decl. at 1. V.K. exhausted all of her available leave and was required to purchase 

additional leave. Id. at 1-2. V.K. was not otherwise compensated for purchasing 

additional leave. Id. at 2. The “Leave and Earnings Statement,” submitted as Exhibit A to 

V.K.’s declaration, establishes the amount of the additional leave V.K. purchased: one 

payment of $698.23, and another payment of $897.36, which comes to a total of 

$1,595.59. Ex. A to V.K. Decl. At the March 7, 2016 hearing, Defendant did not dispute 

the authenticity of V.K.’s declaration nor the accompanying exhibit. 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant pay 

restitution to V.K. in the amount of $1,595.59, which shall be due immediately. The Ninth 

Circuit mandates that the Court must specify a restitution payment schedule in its 

restitution order. Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing United 

States v. Gunning (Gunning I), 339 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. 

Gunning (Gunning II), 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005)). Under the MVRA, the Court 

Case 3:15-cr-00042-RS Document 97 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

may not consider the defendant’s ability to pay in determining whether to order restitution 

or the amount of restitution, but must consider the defendant’s ability to pay in establishing 

a payment schedule. United States v. Dean, 949 F. Supp. 782, 784 (D. Or. 1996). 

Because Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence relative to his 

ability to pay, the Court’s assessment is limited to the PSR, which relied on information 

obtained from a credit report, public record databases, and financial documents completed 

with Defendant. PSR at 17. Defendant has liabilities in the amount of $613.00 and no 

assets or income. Id. at 18. Defendant has no history of employment over the past ten 

years, his only source of income appears to be government benefit programs, and he is 

represented by court appointed counsel. Id. 

Considering the Defendant’s lack of income and assets, the Court orders that

Defendant shall pay the restitution pursuant to the following schedule, effective 

immediately: 

2

1. While incarcerated, Defendant shall pay restitution at the rate of not less than 

$25.00 per quarter. Restitution payments during imprisonment shall be made through the 

Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. 

2. No later than 60 days from placement on Supervised Release, Defendant 

shall commence monthly restitution payments of not less than $50.00 or at least 10 percent 

of earnings, whichever is greater, until the balance of restitution is paid in full. Restitution 

payments shall be made to the Clerk of U.S. District Court, Attention: Financial Unit, 450 

Golden Gate Ave., Box 36060, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Should Defendant’s financial circumstances change or should he be unable to meet 

this obligation, this schedule shall be subject to modification as provided by 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3664(k) and (n). Any payments made by Defendant shall first be applied to satisfy this 

Order of restitution.

 

2

 Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant does not have the ability to pay 

interest; thus, the interest requirement is waived for the restitution.

Case 3:15-cr-00042-RS Document 97 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s judgment of conviction shall be amended to 

reflect that Defendant is liable to the victim for $1,595.59, to be paid as set forth above. 

Interest on the restitution is waived due to Defendant’s inability to pay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/09/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cr-00042-RS Document 97 Filed 03/09/16 Page 5 of 5