Opinion ID: 4564550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Schueg

Text: Schueg’s challenges to his concurrent 165-month sentences all relate to the assessment of fines and costs. After stating simply that Schueg “has the ability to pay a fine,” the District Court ordered that he, together with other defendants, pay $6,500 in restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). Schueg App. 63-64. It also ordered payment of the special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A), and of certain costs of prosecution, including $13,948.76 for the compensation of York police officers who testified at trial. Although Schueg challenges the MVRA and police compensation orders on substantive grounds, he also, as a threshold matter, contests the District Court’s finding of an ability to pay. The PSR found that Schueg lacked such an ability, and he raised the issue in his sentencing memorandum. Under the MVRA, a district court must “specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid,” after considering the defendant’s “financial resources and other assets,” projected income, and “financial obligations.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). 87 We have interpreted this provision loosely, requiring only that “the record evidence[] a court’s consideration of the defendant’s financial situation,” though “express findings” need not be made. United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 202 (3d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, in this case, we cannot find in the record any consideration of Schueg’s financial condition. There was testimony regarding a denial of financial aid on a college application, and gifts that Schueg gave to his sister’s children. None of that, however, goes to his ability to pay at the time of sentencing. While the District Court did specify a payment schedule, there is no indication where the Court determined Schueg had the ability to fulfill that schedule—especially given the PSR’s finding and Schueg’s objection in his sentencing memorandum. We will, therefore, vacate the District Court’s judgment of sentence as it relates to the assessment of restitution, fines, and costs, and remand for consideration of Schueg’s ability to pay.