N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSHUA JOHN HESTER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50107

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-02967-B TM -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M AR C O M ANUEL LUIS,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50123

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-02967-B TM -5

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , C h ie f Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JAN 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d De c e m be r 8, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KELLY, *** C ALLAHAN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. In 2012, both Joshua

He ste r and M arc o Luis ple a d e d guilty to c onspira c y

to la unde r m one y , a

nd He ste r ple a de d guilty

to va rious drug tra ffic king offe nse s. The distric t c ourt orde re d Luis a nd He ste r to pa

y re stitution to JP M orga

n C ha se (“ C ha se ” ) in the am ount of $615,935, a nd to C itiGroup, Inc ., in the am ount of $329,767, but did not spe c ify a re stitution pa

ym e nt sc he dule . Luis a

n d He ste r
a ppe a le d the re stitution orde rs. This C ourt a ffirm e d the c a lc ulation of re stitution
owe d to C itiGroup, a

n d va c at e d a

nd re m ande d for the distric t c ourt to re c a lc ulate the a m ount owe d to C ha se . Unite d State s v . Luis , 765 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 2014); U nite d State

s v . He ste r , 584 Fe d. App’ x805, 806 (2014). On re m and, the distric t

c ourt 1 rule d

tha t no re stitution wa s owe d to C ha se . In re g ards to there stitution owe d to C itigroup, the distric t c ourt orde re d tha t the B ure a u of Prisons turn over a ll funds in He ste r’ s Inm ate Trust Ac c ount, m inus

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Pa ul J. Ke lly , Jr., Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 1 On re m and, this a c tion wa s a ssigne d to a diffe re nt distric t judge , be c a use the first distric t judge re tire d while the a ppe a l wa s pe nding. 2$500 for He ste r’ s ne c e s sa ry pe rsona l e xpe n se s, a

nd se t a re stitution pa

ym e nt
sc he dule a s a

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se for both de fe n da

nts. Luis a

n d He ste r
a ppe a l a se c ond tim e , c ha l le nging thedistric t c ourt’ s a bility to se t a re stitution pa ym e nt sc he dule and to orde r the B ure a u of Prisons to turn ove

r funds in He ste r’ s Inm a te Trust Ac c o unt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt e x e rc ise d its powe r to e n forc e the C itigroup re stitution orde r that this C ourt ha d a ffirm e d pre viously
. S e e Pe ac oc k v . Thomas , 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996). Unde

r the M andatory

Vic tim R e stitution Ac t (“ M VR

A” ), the distric t c o urt m

ust “ spe c ify

in the re stitution orde

r the m anne r in whic h, a

nd the
sc he dule a c c ording to whic h, the re stitution is to be pa i d, in c onside ration of” the de fe nda n t’ s fina nc ia l re sourc e s. 18 U.S.C . § 3664(f)(2); W ard v . C hav e z , 678 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th C ir. 2012). The first distric t judge a ssigne d to Luis’ s a nd He s te r’ s c a se did not c onside r the i r fina nc ia l re sourc e s or se t a

re stitution pa

ym e nt sc he d

ule , whic h m a de
re stitution due

im m e diate ly at the tim e of the ir se nte n c ing. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3572(d)(1) (“ A pe rson se nte nc e d to pa y a fine or othe r m one ta

ry pe na lty , inc luding
re stitution, sha

ll m ake suc h pa

y m e nt im m e d iate ly , unle ss, in theinte re st of justic e , the c ourt provide s for pa

ym e nt on a

date c e rta in or in insta

llm e nts.” ); Unite d State

s
v . C arte r , 742 F.3d 440, 444-45 (9th C ir. 2014) (pe r c uriam ) (the “ pra c tic a l e ffe c t”
3of fa i ling to provide any pa rtic ula r paym e nt sc he d

ule in a re stitution orde

r is tha t
re stitution is due

“ im m e diat e ly upon [the de fe nda

n t’ s] se nte nc ing” ). The de fe nda n ts ne ve r satisfie d tha

t obliga tion, so on re m and, in orde r to “ e nforc e the orde r of re s titution,” C

arte r , 742 F.3d a

t 445, thene wly -a ssigne d distric t judge
c onside re d the de fe nda

nts’ fina nc ia l c irc um sta

nc e s a nd provide d a

pa ym e nt
sc he dule with whic h the y c ould c om

ply . The c ourt did wha

t the M V R

A re quire s by “ se tting a

re stitution pa

ym e nt sc he dule ” a fte r “ c onside r[ing] the de fe nda nt’ s fina nc ia l re sourc e s.” W

ard , 678 F.3d a

t 1052. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not err by re quiring theB ure a

u of Prisons to turn ove r the funds he ld in He s te r’ s Inm ate Trust Ac c ount. Unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3664(n), if a de fe nda

nt orde re d to pa

y re stitution “

re c e i ve s substa

ntia l re sourc e s from any sourc e . . . during a

pe riod of inc arc e ra tion, suc h pe rson sha ll be re quire d to a p ply the va l u e of suc h

re sourc e s to a

ny re stitution . . . still owed .” B e c a u se He ste r’ s Inm a te Trust Ac c ount showe d tha t he re c e ive d

“ substa ntia l re s ourc e s” during his period of inc arc e ra tion ($12,500 in 2015 a lone ), he wa s re quire d by la w to a p ply those funds to the$329,767 in re stitution he still owe d. AFFIRM E D.

4