Opinion ID: 783918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Factors

Text: 25 Appellant avers that in ordering restitution the trial court did not consider any factor except the loss sustained by the insurance companies that made the no-fault medical payments and the payments for civil settlements. He believes the sentencing court erred by failing to consider other statutorily mandated factors, which Baptiste identifies as including his financial resources, financial needs, earning ability and dependants. Appellant does not specify the authority he relies on for his argument, but the language used in his brief tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3663. His apparent reliance upon § 3663 in this case is misplaced because it is inapplicable to his offense. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), enacted as Title II, Subtitle A of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, states that the MVRA is, to the extent constitutionally permissible, effective for sentencing proceedings in cases in which the defendant is convicted on or after April 24, 1996. See United States v. Thompson, 113 F.3d 13, 15 n. 1 (2d Cir.1997) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2248 (statutory notes)). Yves Baptiste's criminal offense was committed on August 1, 1997, and he was convicted on April 10, 2002, meaning that his sentencing proceedings are governed by the MVRA, including 18 U.S.C. § 3663A and the post-1996 version of 18 U.S.C. § 3664. 26 Section 3663A, in contrast to § 3663, makes restitution mandatory for losses suffered by victims of certain crimes — including Baptiste's crime of fraud — and directs that restitution orders be issued and enforced in accordance with § 3664. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii), (d). Section 3664 states that the court shall order restitution to each victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as determined by the court and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.  18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, according to the plain text of the statute, the district court — in determining the restitution amount to be paid by Baptiste — was bound to consider only the victims' losses and was precluded from considering the other factors suggested by appellant. See United States v. Catoggio, 326 F.3d 323, 326 (2d Cir.2003); Harris, 302 F.3d at 75. 27 Although Baptiste's economic circumstances were not relevant to the determination of the amount of restitution, the district court was nonetheless required to consider those circumstances when determining a schedule of payment to satisfy the restitution order. Specifically, § 3664 requires that, in determining a restitution payment schedule, a district court consider the defendant's financial resources and other assets, projected earnings, and financial obligations, including obligations to dependents. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Catoggio, 326 F.3d at 327; Harris, 302 F.3d at 75. 28 We have held that while a sentencing court need not make detailed factual findings on each factor, the record must disclose some affirmative act or statement allowing an inference that the district court in fact considered the defendant's ability to pay. See United States v. Kinlock, 174 F.3d 297, 300 (2d Cir.1999); see also Harris, 302 F.3d at 75 (district court's assertion that it read the presentence report will not suffice because it does not indicate the report's contents were considered). 29 Here, the record indicates that during Baptiste's sentencing proceedings, Judge Gleeson addressed Baptiste's longstanding employment history, his military service, his dependant living in Chicago, and his present living arrangements. The trial court also questioned Baptiste's counsel about an error detected on Baptiste's tax returns and made the amendment of the returns a condition of appellant's supervised release. We are satisfied, on this record, that the district court did in fact consider the defendant's ability to pay in setting a payment schedule, as required by § 3664(f)(2). In consequence, ordering Yves Baptiste to make restitution in the amount of $46,701 on a payment schedule of $150 per month did not constitute an abuse of discretion.