F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.
G ER AL D G RE EN , Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 10-50519

D.C. No. 2:08-cr- 00059- GW-1

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA , Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.
P ATR I C I A G RE EN , Defendant-

Appellant ,

J EF F R EY F. A L L EN , Movant

. No. 10-50524
D.C. No. 2:08-cr- 00059- GW-2

OPI NI ON

Appea ls from the United States District Court fo r t he Ce ntr a l D istri c t of

Ca lif or nia Geor g e H. Wu, District J udg e, PresidingU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Argued and Submitted Janu ary 9, 20 13 —Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia Filed July 11, 2013
Be fore : Alex Koz inski, Chi ef Judge , M. Marg are t Mc Ke own a

nd Mil an D . Sm ith , Jr. , Ci rc uit Judg e s. Opinion by

Chief J udg e Kozinski

SUMMAR

Y *

Crim inal L aw The pa nel af firmed a restitution order in a c ase in which the d e f e n d an ts c la im e d

th at t h e d is tr ic t c o urt v io la ted Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 5 30 U. S. 4 66 (2 00 0) , w he n it
o rder ed them to pay

restitution without a jury ’s findingthat ther e w a s a

nid e n ti f ia b le v ic ti m wh o s u f

f e r e d a p e c un iary los s.
Th e pa ne l he ld t hat Southern Union Co. v. United States , 13 2 S. Ct . 2 34 4 ( 20 12 ), wh ic h h e ld t hat Apprendia

pp lie s to the fa c t- fi nd ingne e d to tr ig g e r c ri min a l f ine s, is n ot c le arl y irrec oncilable with this court’s pr ece dent holding that Apprendido e s n ot a

pp ly to r e sti tut ion

or de rs
.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 3
CO UN SEL
Har old J . Kre nt (argued), Chica g o-Ke nt Coll ege of L aw, Chicag o, I llinois ; Maril y n E. Be dnarski, Ka

y e, McL ane & B e dn ars ki, L L P, Pa sa de na , Ca lif or ni a, f or De fe nd ants

Ap pe lla nts

. Sc ott A. C. M e isl e r ( argue d) , Cr imi na l D ivi sio n, Appe llate Section, L anny

A. B reue r, Assistant Attorney General, J ohn D. B ur e tta , A c tin g De puty As sistant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, United States Depa

rtment of Just ice, Washing ton, D.C.; An dr é B ir ott e , Jr., Un ite d St ate s A tto rn e y , L os An g e le s, California, for

Plaintiff-Appellee

. Ste ve Coc hr an, Katte n M uc hi n R o s e nm a n , L L P, L os An g e le s, California, for

Movant J eff

rey F. Allen.

OP IN ION
KOZ I NSKI , Chief J udg e:
For g et life a

nd liberty . Th i s appea l conce rns another pr e c iou s th ingwe take fr om c ri min al defend ants : th e ir
m o n e y.
Def endants Ge rald a

nd Patricia Gr een claim the district court violated Ap

pr e nd i v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), when it orde red the m t o pay restitution without a jury ’s finding that there was “an identifiable vic tim or victims” who suffe red a

“pec uniary

loss ”—finding s require d to trigg er re sti tut ion

un de r t he Mand atory

Vi c tim s Re sti tut ion

Ac t. Th ou g h o ur

c a se law h old s th at Ap

pr e nd i do e sn ’t a pp ly to resti t u t ion orders, the Gre ens invite us to disti ng uish ourU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 4

case s or else ove rrule the m in light o f t h e S upreme Court’s rec ent dec ision in Southern Union Co. v. United States , 132 S. Ct . 2344 (2012).

F acts
Ger ald and Patric ia G reen sure kne w how to put on a show. Movie industry

veteran s, the husband-a

nd-wife team won a slewof cont rac ts from the Tourism Authority of Thailand to run the Ba

ng kok International F ilm F estival and to direct other

promotional projects. The film festival, the larg est of the c ontract s , flourished duringthe Gre ens’ f our y ear s at the helm, g ener ating larg e prof its—$140 mi llion by
one mar ketingfirm’s estimates—and r ankingamongthe top 15 f i l mf e s t i v a l s i nth e w o r l d

. M o r e th an1 6 0 0 j o ur n a lis ts attended the events in 2006, when one industry insider predic ted the festival “w ill become the Canne s Film Fe stival of the Ea st within a y ear

or two.”
The Gr eens l ooked to be on their way to silver-scr een s u c c e s s , b u t th e r e w a s a d ar k s e c r e t th at w o u l d g e t i n th e w ay: The Gr eens ha d secur ed their luc rative contrac ts thanks, at least in part, to $1.8 mil l i o n i n pay ments to the g overnor

of Th a i l an d ’ s T o ur i s mA u th o r i ty
. T h e G r e e n s s o m e t i m e s p a id the g overnor direc tly , other times through t h e go vernor ’s daug h t e r o r o n e o f th e g o v e r

n o r ’ s f r i e n d s
. Ina l l , th e i l l ic it pay ments amounted to roug hly 13 p er cent of the total value of the Gr e e ns ’ c on tr a c ts.
In 2 00 6, a c on fi de nti a l inf

or mant al e rt e d the F B Ito t

he se pay ments, leadingto a

y ear -longinvestigation and a 22-c ount indictment on For eig n Corrupt Practice s Act (F CPA), money launder ing, c onspiracy

and t ax char g es. The G ree ns were convicted by a jury

. At sentenc ing, the district court imposedU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 5

T h e pa r t i e s di s pu t e w h e t h e r r e s t i t u t i on w a s or de r e d u n de r t h e M V RA 1
or t h e V i ct i m a n d W i t n es s P r ot ec t i on Act ( V W PA ) , 18 U

. S. C. § 3663. B u t bot h s t at u t es r equ i r e a f i n di n g t h at t h er e wa s a v i ct i m wh o s u f f er ed a l oss , s o t he A p

p re n d i q u e stio n is i n p la y e ithe r w a y.

T he G reens d i d n’ t rai se an A p p re n d i o b ject i o n t o t hese f i nd i ngs o r t he 2
re stitutio n o rd e r. T h e go v e rn m e n t a r g u e s w e sh o u ld re v ie w fo r p la in
e rr o r. W e d e c line to d o so b e c a u se the leg a l i ssu e s in th is c a se fall w ithin the e x c e p tio n s to p la in e rr o r re v ie w d e s c r ib e d b y Uni t ed St at es v. Sa avedra- V

el azquez , 57 8 F.3d 11 0 3 , 11 0 6 (9t h C i r. 20 0 9 ). six mo nth s’ imp ri so nm ent, thr e e y e ars ’ s up e rv ise d r e le a se and $250,000 in re stitut ion, for which G era ld and Patricia a re jointly and seve rally

liable.
The Gr eens’ appea l conce rns only the re stitut ion.
Discussion
I. Restit ution’s Triggers
To imp os e re stitut ion

un de r t he Mand a tor

y Vi c tim s Restituti on Act (MV R A) , there must be a showingthat “an identifiable victim or victims has suffe red a phy sical injury or pecunia ry loss.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)( 1)(B ). The district 1 judge fo und there was a

victim and that “[t] echnic ally

. . . there [was] a los s in terms of the bribe ry figure a mount.” So

2 did the Presentenc e Investig ation Report. But the jury never had a c hance to make these finding s, as there was no spec ial verdic t. Nor do the convictions nece ssarily imply a victim or a loss. For example, the FCPA jury instructions allowed for a convic ti o nif

th e ju r y f o un d th e G r e e n s h a d

a c ted “cor ruptly ” in making a pay

ment to a fore ign of

ficial “ for the purpose of

. . . secur ing a

ny impro p er advantag e.” A s the Gre ens ar gue, the F CPA convictions would be “consistentU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 6

Pat r i ci a G r ee n ’ s c on v i ct i on s f or f al s e s u bs cr i pt i on of

t wo t ax r et urns 3 do ne ces s ar i l y im p l y a pec un i ar y l oss t o a vi ct i m— t he f eder al go ve rnm en t

. B ut t he p ro sec uti o n e l ec t ed no t t o see k re st i t uti o n for the se co nv i cti o ns. with f indings that the pay

ments were investments” or “ bribes dr awn fr om the Gr e e ns ’ ow n pr of its .” No r do th e Gr e e ns ’ other c onvictions requi re finding a victim or a pec uniary los s. Be cause the finding s trigg eringrestitution were n’t 3 made by the jury , we must dec ide whethe r Ap pr e nd i a pp lie s.
II. Apprendi ’s Appli cation to Re stitution Ap pr e nd i held that, “[o]t her tha n the fa ct of a

prior
c onvic tio n, any

fa c t th at in c re a se s th e pe na lty fo r a c ri me beyond the presc ribed statutory maxi mum must be submitted to a jur y , a nd pr ov e d b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.” 53 0 U .S. at 490. “[T] he ‘statutory maxi m u m ’ f o r Ap pr e nd i purposes is the max imum sentence a judge may

impose solely

on the b a s is o f th e f

a c ts r e f le c te d in th e ju

r y v e r d ic t o r a dmitted by the def endant.” Blakely v. W

ashington , 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) ( emphasis omitted). Ap pr e nd i a pp lie s to the fa c tfinding neede d to trig g er c apital punishment, Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 609 (2002), and c riminal fines, So uth e rn Union , 1 32 S. Ct. at 23 57 , but no t the fa c t- fi nd ingne e de d to make c oncurr ent sentenc es conse cutive, Or egon v. Ice , 555 U.S. 160, 164 (2009).
Whil e the S up reme Court has y et to hold whether Ap pr e nd i applies to resti tution, it has said in dictum that “[ i ] n tru d i n g Apprendi ’s ru le int o” de c isi on s to imp os e

“ statut or ily

pr e sc ri be d f

ine s and or de rs of re sti tut ion ” wo uld “cut the rule loose f

rom its moorings.” Id. at 171–72. That’s
s o m e i n d i c at i o nth e C o urtw o u l d n o ta p p l y Ap pr e nd i toU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 7

re sti tut ion , a lth ou g h th e re c e nt Southern Un i on decision declined to f

ollow this dictum, at le ast as i t conce rned criminal fines. 132 S. C t. at 2352 n.5 (“ [O] ur statement in Ice was unne cessa

ry to the judgme nt and is not binding.”)

. Our own court, howe ver, ha s cate g orica lly held that Ap pr e nd i an d i t s p r o g e n y—

Blak e ly and United States v. Booke r , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 )

— d o n ’ ta p p l y t o r e s t i tu t i o n
. In United States v. Bu sse ll , 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005), we he ld that “the district cour t ’s o rd ers of restitution and costs” under

the VWPA “are u n affecte d by the cha ng es w o r k e d b y Booke r .” See also United States v. DeGe orge , 380 F.3d 1 20 3, 12 21 (9 th C ir . 2 00 4) (V WPA r e sti tut ion “ is
un a f f e c t e d b y Blak e ly ” ); Un ite d S

tates v. Gor d

on , 393 F.3d 10 44 , 1 05 1 n .2 (9 th C ir . 2 00 4) (d e fe nd ant’ s “ Blak e ly argument is f

orec losed by our re cent de cision in United States
v
. DeGe orge ” )

. U n d e r

th e e xis ti n g la

wo f th e c ir c u it , the n, defe ndants’ Ap

pr e nd i c la im mus t f

a il.
Def endants none theless adva

nce two r easons for bre aking wi th p re c e de nt:
A. The “Tr igg e r ” A r gum e nt
The Gr eens say

our ca ses have reje cted Apprendi ’s application to deter

minations of the am ou nt of re stitut ion, not to determinations of whe the r restitution is trig g ere d at all. As
a r e s u l t , th e y i n s i s t , w e c ana p p l y Ap pr e nd i to the trig g er deter mination without running afoul of our case law. At oral argument the Gree ns theorized a re g ime under which Ap pr e nd i would apply

to the deter

mination of the trig g er but
no t th e amou

nt.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 8
We are n o t p ersuaded. F irst, this approach c ontrave nes the c ate g or ica l nat

ur e of our s tate me nts that r e sti tut ion is

“ un a f f e c t e d ” b y App rendi

. See pag e 7 su pra . T he se cate g orica l statements control even thoug h the ca ses from which they

issued didn’t s p ec ifically addre ss the trig g er argument. A pane l may adopt a cate g orica l rule as circuit law without ex plicitly

reje cting ever

y con ce ivable counte rargument. We further

hesitate to adopt the trig g er a rgument beca use the Gre ens ca

n’t cite a ny case —state or f

eder al—that has ac cepte d it, and because the t wo circuits that considered it, reje cted it. See U

nited States v. Milkiewicz , 470 F.3d 390, 40 3 (1 st Ci r. 20 06 ); United States v. Reifler , 446 F.3d 65, 115–18 (2d Cir. 2006).
Fi n al l y , ap p l yi n g Appre nd i to the deter

mination of the tr ig g e r b ut n ot t

he de te rm inatio n o f t

he amou nt wo uld re su lt in una cce ptable cog nitive dissonance. I f Ap pr e nd i cover s the deter mination whether the re are a ny victims at all, shouldn’t it a lso c ov e r t

he de te rm inatio n w he the r th ere ’s on e vic tim who suffe red a

$1000 loss as opposed to 10 00 victims who suffe red a

combined $1,000,000 loss? I t’s hard to justify Ap pr e nd i pr ote c tio ns fo r t

he de te rm inatio n o f t

he fi rs t vi c tim but not the 999 to follow, each o f which w ould increa se the amount of restitution imposed upon the defe ndant. And if we treat eac h victim -d et ermination as a separ ate trig g er, w e’r e ef fe ct i v el y ap p l yi n g Ap

pr e nd i to the deter

min at i o n of the amount. That’s not so much distinguishing our pre cede nt as ov e rr uli ngit.
B. Sout hern Uni on and th e M

i l le r v. Gam m ie Stand ard
The Gr eens nex t urg e us to overr ule our caselaw

in light of the Supreme Court’s rec ent dec ision in Southern Un ion , wher e a g as c o m p any

was c harg ed with violating theU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 9
Resource Conservation an dRecove ry Act (RCRA), which provides for a maxi mum c riminal fine of $50,000 per day of violation. 132 S. C t. at 2349. T h e indictment alleg ed the company had violated RC RA for a period of 762 day s, but the jur y w a s in s tr

u c te d th at it c o u ld c o n v ic t if it f o un d e v en a single day ’s vi olation. Id. And convict the jur y did. Id. At sentenc ing, the court calc ulated a “ maxi mum potential fine of $3 8. 1 milli on ” —$ 50 ,0 00 x 762 da y s— “ fr om whic h it imposed a fine of $6 milli on and a ‘ community service obligatio[ n]’ of $12 million.” Id. De fe nd ant o bje c te d th a t it had been co nvicted of just one da y ’s violation, so any

fac t resulting in a fine over the daily maxi mum had to be found by a jury

. Id. T h e S u

p re m e C o urt agr ee d , ap p l yi n g Ap pr e nd i to criminal fines. Id. at 2349, 2357.
Southern Union provides re ason to believe A p prendi might apply

to restitution. As the Court held: “I n stat i ng Apprendi ’s rule, w e have never disti ng uished one for

m of punis hme nt f

ro m ano the r. Ins te a d, our decisi on s b ro a dly prohibit judicial factf

inding that incr ease s maxi mum criminal ‘sentenc e[s] ,’ ‘pe nalties,’ or ‘ punishme n t[ s]’—terms that
eac h undeniably

embra ce f

ines.” Id. at 2351. The G ree ns say th at“b y ap p l yi n g Ap

pr e nd i to criminal fines, Southern Union str on g ly signa ls that Ap

pr e nd i applies t o criminal re stitut ion
as we ll.” But “ strong [] signa ls” are n’t enoug h. For a thre ejud g e pa ne l to ov e rr

ule c ir c uit pr e c e de nt, the int e rv e nin g c a se must “underc ut the t h eo ry or re asoningunderly

ing the prior circ uit prece dent in such a w ay that the ca ses ar e c le ar ly irr e c on c ila ble .” Mi lle r v. Ga mm ie , 3 35 F .3 d 8 89 , 9 00 (9 th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis adde d). Southern Union doesn’t cross that thre shold. Even if it chips awa y at the the or y be hin d o ur

re sti tut ion cas e s, it’ s n ot “ c le arl y ir re c on c ila ble ” wi th our h old ing s th a t r e sti tut ion is

“ un a f f e c t e d ” b y Apprendi

.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 10
F ir st, the ob vio us : Southern Union deals with cr iminal fines, not re stitut io n
. I t’s far from “c lear [] ”—

Miller ’s term—that a rule g overning one would g overn t h e o ther. I n d e e d , it ’ s n o t e v e n c le ar th at r e s ti tuti o n ’ s a form of pun is h me n t. We ’ v e h e ld in s o me c o n te xts th a t “ r e s ti tution under the MVRA is punishment.” United States v. Du bo se , 14 6 F .3 d 11 41 , 11 45 (9 th Ci r. 1 998) ; see U nited States v. Ballek , 1 70 F.3d 871, 876 ( 9th Cir. 1999). But in other
c o n te xts , w e ’ v e h e ld it ’ s n o t. See U nited States v. Phillips , 704 F.3d 754, 771 (9 t h Cir. 2012) (“[F]orfe iture and
re sti tut ion

se rv e e nti re ly

dis tin c t pu

rp os e s: ‘ Con g re ss c on c e ive d o f f

or fe iture a s pu nis hm e nt

. . . . The purpose of restitution . . . , however , is not t o p u n ish the defe ndant, but to ma k e thev ic tim who leag

ain

. ’” (q u o t i n g United States v. Newman , 65 9 F .3 d 1 23 5, 12 41 (9 th C ir . 2 01 1) )) ; Gordon , 393 F.3d at 1052 n.6 (“[T]he M VR A’s purpose is to make the victims whole; converse ly , the Sentencing G uidelines serve a punitive purpose.” ). Sometimes we’ve held it’s a hy brid, with “ both c ompensatory

and pena l purposes.” United States
v. Rich , 603 F.3d 722, 729 ( 9th Cir. 2010). Even if Apprendi
c o v e r s a l l f

o r m s o f p un i s h m e n t , r e s t i t u t i o n ’ s n o t“ c l e a r l y” punishment, so we can’ t r ely on Southern Union to o ve rr ule
our r e sti tut ion

pr e c e de nts

. Second, S

o u th e rn U

n ion c on c e rn e d a

de te rm inate punishment scheme with statutory maxi mums: “[O]ur decisions broadly prohibit judicia l f actf inding that incre ases maximum criminal ‘se nten c e [s ], ’ ‘ p e n a lt ie s , ’ or ‘punishment[s] .’” 132 S. Ct. at 2351 (e m p h asis added)

. Restituti on car

ries with i t no statutory maxi mum; it’s peg g ed to the amount of t he victim ’s l oss. A j udg e can’t excee d the non-existent st atutory m ax imum for restitution no matter what fa cts he finds, so Apprendi ’s not implicated.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 11
Th e F ourt h Cir c uit ha s a lr e a dy he ld t hat Southern Union doesn’t apply t o restitution because “ there is no prescribe d statutory maximum in the restitution context .” United States
v. Day , 7 0 0 F

. 3 d 7 1 3 , 7 3 2 ( 4 th C i r
. 2 0 1 2 ) ( e mp h a s is i n orig inal). And, prior to Southern Union , o the r c ir c uit s c ame to the same c onclusion. See M ilkiewicz , 470 F .3 d at 4 04 (1 st Cir .) ; Reifler , 44 6 F .3 d at 11 7– 20 (2 d Ci r. ); United States v. Sosebee , 419 F.3d 4 5 1 , 4 54 (6th Cir. 2005). Simil arly , our own c ourt

he ld l a st D e c e mbe r t

hat Southern Union doesn’t apply to c r im in a l forfe iture bec ause, like r estitution, forfeiture lacks a statutory maxi mum: “The So u t hern Union Court expli citly held . . . that there could be no ‘ Ap pr e nd i violation wher e no maximum is prescr ibed.’” Phillips , 704 F.3d at 770 (qu o t i n g Sou t h er n Un ion , 132 S. Ct . at 2353). But see Southern Union , 132 S. Ct . at 2350–51 ( Ap pr e nd i a pp lie s to fines whe re the maxi mum is based on “the amount of . . . the
v i ct i m ’s l o s s
. ”)

. T h i s d i ff i cu l ty wi thap p l yi n g So uth e rn Uni on —and, by

extension Apprendi

—to an in de te rm inate sc he me fu rt he r u nd e rm ine s any

c la im that Southern Union is “cle arly irrec oncilable” with our restitution casela w.
III. Conclusion
Our p re c e de nt s are c le ar t hat Ap pr e nd i do e sn ’t a pp ly to re sti tut ion , b ut t

hat do e sn ’t

me an our

c a se law’ s w e llharmonized with Southern Union . Had Southern Union c ome down bef ore our case s, those case s might have come out differ ently

. Nonethele ss, our panel can’ t ba se its de cision on wh at th e law m ig ht h ave be e n. Suc h r e wr iti ngof do c tr ine is the sole province of the c ourt sitting en ba nc. F ace d with theU NI TED S T A T ES V

. G RE EN 12 question whether Southern Union has “under cut the theory or rea soning unde rlying the prior circuit prec edent in such a way th atth e c a s e s ar e c l e ar l y i r r e c o n c i l a b l e , ” w e c anan s w e r

o n l y: No.
AF F IRMED.