F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

I N R E : S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C ., Crime Victim.

S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C ., P etitioner ,

v

. U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R

T F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F N E V

A D A , L A S V E G A S , Respondent , D E B O R A H A. D I F R

A N C E S C O , D efendantReal Party in Interest , U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P laintiffReal Party in Interest

. N o. 13-72062

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00089- J CM-GW F -1

OPI NI ON

Petition for W rit of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of NevadaI N R E : S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C

. 2
Submitted J une 17, 2013 *

F iled J une 19, 2013

B efore: Michael Daly

Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould, and Paul J . W atford, Circuit J udg es. Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by

J udg e Hawkins

SUMMARY * *

Crim inal Law The panel denied as premature a petition pursuant to the Crime Victims Rig hts Act f or a writ of m an d a mus c h a lleng ing the district c o urt’s denial of a crime victim ’s request f o r forfeiture of certain assets implicated i n the defendant’s criminal activities.

The p anel held that because the defendant’s sentencing is still pending , the petitioner’s request for restitution is not y et ripe. Concurring , J udg e Hawkins would g o furth e r and deny the petition on the merits.

* T h e p a n e l u na n im o u sly co n clu d es th is case is su itab le f o r d ecisio n w ith o u t o ral arg u

m en t. S ee Fed . R. A pp . P . 3 4 (a)(2 ).

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.I N R E : S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C

. 3

COUNSEL

Kenneth P. Childs, Sta k e C enter L ocating , I n c., Salt L ake City , Utah, for Petitioner.

Eliz abeth O lson W hite, Appellate Chief and Assistant United States Attorney , District of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, for Real Party in I n terest United States of America.

Mark B

. B ailus, B ailus Cook & Kelesis, L td., L as Vegas, Nevada, for Real Party

in I nterest Deborah DiF rancesco.

OP INION

PER CURI AM:

Petitioner Stake C e n ter L o cating , I nc., a victim o f defendant Deborah DiF rancesco’s (“DiF rancesco”) c r imes, petitio n s f

or a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U .S.C. § 3771, the Crime Victims Rig hts Act (“CVRA”). B ecause we find that the petition for a writ of mandamus is premature, we deny the petition.

DiF rancesco was charg ed with one count of income tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and three c ounts of wire fraud in v i o lation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On May 29, 2013, pursuant to a plea ag reement, DiF rancesco pled g uilty to all charg es. I n her plea a g reement, DiF rancesco ag reed to pay petitioner restitut i o n in the a mount of $763,846.34. DiF rancesco’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 4, 2013.I N R E : S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C

. 4
Prior to DiF rancesco’s May 29, 2013 plea h e a ring , petitioner filed a motion in the district court f or reli e f pursuant to the CVRA and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”). I n addition to requesting that the dist rict court reject the plea a g reement, p e titioner requested mandatory forfeiture of c ertain assets implicated in DiF rancesco’s criminal act ivities, which are n o long er in DiF rancesco’s p ossession. The district court denied petitioner’s motion without prejudice. Petitioner challeng e s this denial.

I n reviewing CVRA mandamus petitio n s , w e a re not required to balance the factors outlined in Bauman v. United States Dist. Court , 557 F

. 2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Rather, this court “must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court’s order reflects an ab u s e of discretion or leg al error.” See Kenna v

. United States Dist. Court , 435 F .3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006).

Petitioner’s request for restitution is not y et ripe. Victims
are provided a rig ht to “full and timely restitution a s provided in law” pursuant to the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6). The MVRA provides for restitution “when sentencing a defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3 663A(a)(1); see also § 3663A(c)(1) ( “ T h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l a p p l y i n a l l s e n t e n c i n g proceeding s.

. . .”). The rig ht to “full and timely restitution” attaches at the defendant’s sentencing hearing, w h ere the district court may order resti t u t i o n after considering the presentence r ep ort and o ther documentation or testimony

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664. B ecause DiF rancesco’s sentencing is still pending , petitioner is not currently entitled to restitution. Moreover, the district court has invited petitioner to renew its request for restitution i n connection with DiF r a ncesco’s sentencing hearing

. See May 29, 2013 Transcript at 24.I N R E : S T A K E C E N T E R L O C A T I

N G , I N C

. 5

B e cause petitioner’s claim is unripe, we decline to
c o nsider the merits of petitioner’s claims to restitutio n

. According ly , the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DENIED.

HAW KI NS, Circuit J udg e, concurring :
W h ile I ag ree it is appropriate to refuse mandamus relief
on p rematurity g rounds , I would g o further and deny the petition o n the merits. Reg a rdl e s s of w hether Petitioner is entitled to restitution fro m t h e defendant in this case, the relief it seeks here—a n o r d e r directing the U.S. Attorney to seiz e a ssets and a criminal forfeiture ag ainst the I .R.S.—pertains only to third p arties. Among a num b e r o f flaws in the petition, th e a u t h orities Petitioner relies upon, quite lo gically , apply o nly to restitution or f orfeiture from criminal defendants. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b) (“[ t] he court
s hall o rder

. . . that the defendant make restitutio n t o t h e v ictim of the offense”) (emphasis added); F ed. R. C r i m

. P

. 32.2(a) (requiring that the g overnment provide “ notice to the defendant ” in the indictment or in fo r m a tion that it w ill seek the f orfeiture of p r o perty

) (emphasis added). Absent authority to order the seiz ure o f assets from, o r criminal forfeiture ag ainst, third parties, this court simply cannot g rant the relief Petitioner seeks.