Opinion ID: 1085240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interest on Restitution

Text: Next, Burris contends that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered Burris to pay interest on the restitution award. Burris argues “that [the district court’s] discretion was abused in this case where the appellant clearly does not have the capacity to pay the interest, let alone the principle.” Brief for Defendant-Appellant Burris at 33-34. 6 To the extent that Burris contends that the district court is required to waive interest on a restitution payment where the defendant cannot pay, he is incorrect. Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, if a district court “determines that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest under this subsection, the court may waive the requirement for interest.” 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3)(A) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Echols, 508 F. App’x 266, 267 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Spencer Tnd Dang, 492 F. App’x 730, 731 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bagdy, 535 F. App’x 695, 697-98 (3d Cir. 2009). And to the extent that Burris argues that the district court abused its discretion because of the particular circumstances presented by this case, we disagree. Burris’s liability is joint and several with the liability of numerous other defendants. Those co-conspirators will also be making payments to decrease the joint restitution and interest, and the district court is not obligated to waive interest solely because Burris is unable to pay the total amount.