2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-15-2004 

# U S A v . L at ime r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2724

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L at ime r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 596. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/596NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2724
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JAMES ALBERT LATIMER Appellant Appeal from the D istri ct Court of the Virgin Islands

Div ision o f St. C roix (D.C. Crimi nal Acti on No. 98-cr- 0000038-1) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Ray mond L. Finch

Argued May 7, 2004 Be for e: B AR RY , AM BR O, a nd S M ITH , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led June 15, 2004 ) Pamela L. Colon, Esquire ( Argued) 36C Strand Str eet Ch ristiansted , St. Cro ix USVI, 00820 Attorneyfor Appell

ant David M. Nissman United States Attorney Carl F. Morey Assist ant U.S. Attorney Bruce Z. Marshack, Esquire ( Argued) Office of the United State s Attorne y 1108 King Street , Suite 2012

Ch ristiansted , St. Cro ix USVI, 00820 Attorney s for Appel lee
OPI NION
AM BR O, Circuit

Judge : Jam es A lbert L atime r app eals the decisio n of the D istrict Co urt of th e V irgin Islands orderi ng him to payalmost $59, 000 in res tit ution. We affirm the or der of restitu tion and rem and for the s ole p urp ose of e stab lishin g a p ayme nt sc hed ule. I. Latimer was convi cted of three viol ations of 18 U.S.C. § 1920 (“ False st atement or fraud to obt ain Federa l employ ee’s compensat ion”). The Distri ct Court s entenced Latimer to fift een months imprisonment for each of his three vi olati ons, t o be served concurrently , and t wo years of supervi sed rel ease. The Dis tri ct Court a lso i mposed a $30 0 as sess me nt an d or der ed r estitu tion in th e am oun t of $ 81,8 97.9 4. Latimer s ubsequentl y fi led his firs t appealin thi s case, chall enging his sentence and o rder o f restitutio n. A n earlie r pan el of o ur C ourt af firme d on all issues save one – it
rem and ed f or re calc ulati ng t he r estitu tion am oun t. See United States v. Latimer , No. 01- 3238, 54 Fed. A ppx. 105 , 109-110 (3d Cir. D ec. 18, 200 2). On rem and, the D istrict Court ord ered La time r to p ay $5 8,93 5.75 in re stitutio n to the O ffic e of W ork ers C om pen satio n. The Distri ct Court, however, fai led to e stabl ish a r egular s chedule for restitution3

payments. Latim er is no w b efore us a se cond time, ag ain arg uing the D istrict Co urt erred in orderi ng restitution because he lacks t he abil ity

to pay . We have juri sdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 129 1. W e exe rcise p lenary rev iew o ver w hethe r the res titution o rder is per mis sible and rev iew the m one tary am oun t of a par ticul ar aw ard for clea r erro r. United States v. Jacobs , 167 F.3d 792, 795 (3d Cir. 199 9) (citations omitted). II. Ena cted in 199 6, the M anda tory Victim s Re stitution A ct (“M VR A” ) subs tantially
amen ded the restitution pro visions in the V ictims Witnes s Protection A ct (“VW PA ”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663 et seq . Co urts p rev iou sly had disc retio n in ord erin g re stitutio n. United States v. Coates , 178 F.3d 681, 683 n.3 (3d Cir . 1999). But the “MVRA makes restitution mandatoryfor cert ain cri mes . . . and requires dist rict courts to order

the pay ment of restitution in t

he full amount of the vi ctim’s losses ‘without consider ation of

the economic circumstances of the defendant .’” Id. at683 (q uotin g 18 U.S .C. § 36 64( f)(1 )(A )). In fac t, 18 U .S.C. § 366 3A is entitled “M anda tory restitution to victim s of c ertain crimes. ” Secti on 3663A(a)(1) s tate s that a court “ shallorder” resti tuti on if the defendant is convi cted of an offe nse “described in s ubsecti on (c). ” This subse ction i ncludes “any offense committed by fr aud or decei t.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)( 1)(A). Byits very nature, Latimer’ s conviction under 18 U.S. C. § 1920 (“Fal se statement or fraud to obt ain Federa l
em pl oye e’ s c om pe ns ati on ”) is a n o ff en se co m m itte d b y fr au d o r d ec eit . A cc or di ng ly,1 Latimer’ s rel iance on Un ited Sta tes v. C opp le , 74 F .3d 47 9 (3d Cir. 19 96), is

mi sp la ce d. Thi s c as e wa s p ubl is he d prio r t o the ef fe ctiv e d at e o f the MVRA. 4 Latimer’ s arguments that t he District Court

somehow lacked authority to order , or abus ed its discre tion in o rderin g, restitutio n fail. 1 Our review, however, is not complete. The Distri ct Court f aile d to schedul e any restitution payme nts. A lthoug h som ew hat un clear, it ap pears this dec ision w as du e to
unc ertai nty ov er w heth er L atim er h ad s uff icien t fun ds to ma ke r estitu tion paym ents . See JA at 58 (“Iwill l eave the government to col lect the best it can. I wil l not s chedule any payment s, becaus e I’m not convi nced that the money is there as has been repre sented [by the G ove rnm ent] wit hou t som e fu rthe r pro of.” ). The Distri ct Court’ s approach fel l short of what the MVRA requires. I t provi des that the “cou rt shall
. . . specify in the resti tuti on order the manner in which, and the schedule a ccording to which, the restitution is to be pai d.” 18 U.S. C. § 3664(f)( 2) (emphasis added). Upon consi dering a de fendant’ s financi al res ources, projected earnings and financi al obli gations , 18 U.S.C. §§ 3664(f)( 2)(A)-( C), a sentencing court has two option s. If the d efen dant is c apab le of m aking payme nts, it has c onsid erable flex ibility in struc turin g th e m ann er in wh ich th at is d one . See 18 U .S.C . § 36 64( f)(3 )(A ). Seco nd, if a defe ndan t is deem ed un able to pay the “ full am oun t of a re stitution o rder in the fore seeable future unde r any reasonabl e schedule of payment s,” t hen the sentencing
cou rt ma y direc t him to m ake nom inal p erio dic p ayme nts. 1 8 U .S.C . § 36 64( f)(3 )(B ). Th e D istrict Co urt, h ow eve r, ma y not d eleg ate th e m atter . See Coates , 178 F.3d at 6845

(“Since t he MV RA m andates t

hat dis tri ct court s schedul e restitution pay ments aft er taking into account the defendant's financial resources, the District Court's fail ure to do so here c onstitu tes plain error.”) O n rem and, th e partie s sho uld p resen t appro priate evidence, and the Dist

rict Court shoul d make the necess ary findings and establ ish a restitution schedule in a ccordan ce with § 3664(f ). * * * * * In thi s context , we affirm the decis ion of the Distri ct Court ordering Latimer to pay restitution. We remand t o the Dist rict Court for t

he sole pur

pose of est ablis hing a restitution schedul e.6