The Honor able Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District J udg e for the Easter

n * District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 11a0210n.06 NO. 09-5549 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintif f-Appellee

, ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED ) STA TE S DI STR I CT C OU RT F OR v. ) THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF ) TENNESSEE DA VI D WE SL EY TA YL OR , ) ) De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. )

Before: SUTT O N a n d KETHLE DG E, Circuit Judges; and H OOD, Senior District Judge. * PER C URI AM. Def

endant- Appell ant David Ta y lor (“T aylor”) a

ppeals the por

tion of the dis tr i c t c o u rt ’ s o r d e r o f j u d g m e n t r e qu i r i n g T a y l o r t o p a y r e s t i tu t i o n i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 3 , 7 8 0 to Suntrust Bank. Ta

y lor argues that the amount of restitution ordere d by the district cou rt was improper be cause the amount taken d u r ing the robber

y was not spec ified in the indictment, stipulated by the de fe nd a nt, or

fo un d b y a jur y . T he Un ite d St a te s a

rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t court did no t c omm it plain err or in de termining the amount of restitution be cause Taylor admitted the loss amount during court proc eeding s. F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r o f j ud g me nt i s AF F IR M ED

.2

I. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Th e fa c ts in thi s c a se a re no t in dis pu te

. On Janu a ry 27 , 2 00 9, De fe nd a nt r ob be d th e Sun tr us t Ba nk at 110 West 10th S tree t in Chattanooga , Tenne ssee. Def endant presented a not e to a teller that stated, “This is a hold up. Give me all y our $100, $50 and $20 in bundles. Do this in 60 seconds

or I ’ll blow y our hea d off. No die [ sic ] packs, don’t say any thing.” PSR at ¶ 5. The teller c omplied and hande d over $3,780 in curr ency bundled wit h bank bands. Id. Def endant f led the bank w ith the note and the mone y . Id. The robbe ry was c ap t u re d o n surveillance video, and De fenda nt was identified by using stil l photogr aphs pul led from the vide o. Id. Taylor was a rre sted afte r he r obbed another bank in Knoxvil le, Tenne ssee on January 30, 2009. Id. During the rearr aig nment hear ing, T aylor was a dvised by the district court that he might have to pay restitution. (R.25 at 9). When the United States was r eciting the fac tual basis of the c ase, the Assistant United States A ttorney stated that afte r Taylor reque sted the money from the bank teller that “ [t]he te lle r c omp lie d a nd g a ve the su bje c t a pp ro xima te ly

$3 80 0 in Un ite d St a te s c ur

re nc y .” (R

. 25 at 12). When aske d if the basic fac ts r ecited wer e true, Taylor responde d aff irmatively . (R. 25 at 1 4 ). T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ac ce p t edDe fe n d an t ’s gu i l t y p l ea an d s et t h e m at t er

fo r s en t en ci n g. At the se ntencin g h ear ing , th e dis tr ic t c ourt re lie d o n th e PSR to de te rm ine the a pp lic a ble sentenc ing rang e pursuant to the g uidelines. The PSR classified Tay lor as a c are er of

fende r under USSG § 4B1.1(b) (C) based on two counts of bank robber y in 1993 and three counts of bank r obbery in 2002, which qualified as crimes of violence. Thus, Taylor’s base le vel was 32, w hich was r educe d by three levels due to T ay l o r’s a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty and re sulted in a total offe nse leve l of 29 . G ive n h is c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y of VI , th e PSR c a lc ulate d De fe nd a nt’ s Gui de lin e s rang e to3

be 151 to 188 months of imprisonment. Neither the United States nor Tay lor filed objec tions to t he PSR. At the sentenc ing he aring , the district court de termined that the PSR acc urate ly ref lected the applicable g uideline rang e. The dist rict court listened to statements from Ta y lor. The United States noted that, while this was Ta y l o r’ s s i x th bank robbe ry , he wa s arr ested following a seve nth bank robber y for whic h he had not been char g ed and asked the district court to sentenc e def endant at the top of the Guidelines r ang e. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt , a ft e r c on sid e ri ngthe 18 U. S.C. § 35 53 (a ) fa c tor s, se nte nc e d De fe nd a nt t o a within-Guidelines se ntence of 188 months’ imprisonment, recommende d that Def endant r ece ive 50 0 h ours of

su bs tanc e abuse tr e a tme nt, a nd or de re d T a y lor

to p a y re sti tut ion

to S un tr us t B a nk in the amount of $3,780, the a mo u n t given to Taylor by the bank teller . The district cour t describe d the method by

which pay

ments were to be made until re stitut ion had bee n paid in full. The district cour

t asked at the end of the sent en ci n g h earing whether there wer e “a

ny objections to any

thing that ha s occur

red in this cas e t h at have not been r uled upon by

the Court.” (R. 23 at 17). De fenda

nt responded: “ No, Your Honor , there ’s nothing pe rtaining to this case...” Id. Taylor timely

appea led. II. Stand ard of Review Gene rally , this Court revie ws the amount of restitut ion order ed by the di strict court unde r an abuse- of-discr etion standard. Un ite d S tat es v . B att i , 631 F.3d 371, 379 (6th Cir. 2011) . Howeve r, wh ere, as her e, the de fenda nt failed to objec t to restitution at sentencing , the district court’s restitution order is revie wed for plain er ror. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . S c hu lte , 264 F.3d 656, 660 (6th Cir.4

2001) (c iting Un ite d S

tat es v . H all , 71 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 1995)). “To establish plain err or, a defe ndant must show (1) that an err or occur red in the district c ourt; (2) that the err or wa s plain, i.e., ob vio us or c le a r; (3 ) that the e rr or a ff e c te d de fe nd a

nt’ s subs tanti a l rig hts ; and (4 ) t hat th is a dv e rs e impact seriously aff

ecte d the fa irness, integ rity or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s.” Id. (citing Johnson v. U

nited States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997))

. III. Discussion As an initial matter, we note that re stitut ion in this matter wa s proper pursuant to the Mand a tor y Vi c tim s Re sti tut ion Ac t of 199 6 (“ MV RA ” ) b e c a us e thi s c ri me is c la ssi fi e d a s a “ c ri me of vio le nc e ” un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 36 63 A( c )( 1) . H ow e ve r, Ta y lor a rgue s th a t, b e c a

us e re sti tut ion

is inhere ntly punitive in nature, the defenda nt must admit or a jury

must determine the amount of restitution. W hile Taylor argues that the amount order ed by the district court for

restitution was not pr ov e n o r a d m i t t e d , a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt e r

r e d b y s e t t i n g t h e a m o u n t a t $ 3 , 7 8 0 , h is

a rgume nt f

a ils be c a us e he did

a dmi t th e a mou

nt. During his plea colloquy , the United States Att orney stated that Tay lor fled the ba

nk robber y with “appr ox imately

$3,800,” and the reby

identified the amount of loss to S untrust Ba nk . Taylor stated to the district court judg e that he admi tted the fa cts as pre sented at that time. Further more, the PSRstated that “[t] he teller com p l i ed an d h anded over $3,780 in cur renc y bundled with bank bands.” (PSR, ¶ 5, 83). Defe ndant fa iled to file any objection to the PSRand fa iled to raise a ny objection to the amount at the time of sentencing

. A defendant’s statement that he does not have a ny ob je c tio ns to t

he conte nt o f t

he PSR c on sti tut e s a

n a dmi ssi on

of the fa c ts c on ta ine d in

the PSR. Un ite d S tat es v . S taf for d , 2 58 F .3 d 4 65 , 4 76 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) ; se e als o United States v. Adk ins , 429 F.3d 631 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Thus, the amount of loss was a dmitted by Taylor, both with respe ct t o the5

fa c ts s ta te d b y

the Un ite d St a te s d

ur inghis ple a

c oll oq uy a s w e ll a s b y

his a c qu ie sc e nc e to t

he PSR, and the district cour

t’s decision to direc t him to pay that amount in restitution was not error

. T ay l o r f ai l s t o d ev el o p h i s ar gu m en tre gar d i n g United States v. Book er, 543 U.S. 220, 232 (2005), in his brief

and , t h er ef

o re , i t is waived. El-Moussa v. H older , 569 F.3d 250, 257 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (“ [i ]ss ues adve rted to in a perf unctory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped

a rgume ntatio n, a re de e me d wa ive d. I t is no t suf fi c ie nt fo r a part

y to m e nti on

a po ssi ble a rgume nt i n

a s k el et al wa y , l ea v i n g t h e co u rt t o p u tfl es h o n i t s b o n es . ” ( ci t i n g McPhe rson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997)). Nonethele ss, contrar y to Defe ndant’s ar g ument, the instant case does not repre sent a violation of Booke r be c a us e the a mou

nt o f los s is no t a n e le me nt of the of fe ns e in t his

ma tte r a nd be c a us e the am o u n t of re stitut ion may be dete rmined by

the district court a s descr ibed in the MVRA. See 18 U. S.C. § 2 11 3( a ); 18 U. S.C. § 3 66 4( f) (1 )( A) ; United States v. J ohnson , 440 F. 3 d 8 3 2 , 8 4 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Sosebe e , 419 F.3d 451, 461 (6th Cir. 2005)). Finally , Taylor filed, pr o s e , a supplementa l brief be fore this Court. For the first time, Taylor argues, int e r a lia , that restitution was not proper in this case and that he w as improper ly classified

a s a c a re e r of

fe nd e r. B e c a

us e he wa s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l, w e de c lin e to a dd re ss t he se a rgume nts

. See U nited States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 328 (6th Cir. 2009). That said, the Court ha s review ed his a rgume nts a nd

fi nd s th e y

la c k me ri t. VI. Conclusion F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r o f j ud g me nt i s AF F IR M ED

.