Opinion ID: 73339
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brand's Conviction and Sentence

Text: Brand again raised his challenges to the validity of the underlying state court order in a motion for judgment of acquittal. He also argued in this motion that the government had not proved willfulness under the CSRA because the state court order was too vague and indefinite for him to have known how to comply with it. The magistrate judge denied this motion and issued an order finding Brand guilty of violating the CSRA. The magistrate judge also denied Brand's subsequent motion for a new trial. Brand's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) initially set the amount of his restitution at $115,962, representing back child support. The government objected, however, and advised the probation office of its position that Brand's restitution amount should include the $3.935 million lump sum owing under the state court order. The probation office agreed and, in an addendum to the PSI, concluded that the lump sum appear[ed] [to be intended] for support of the children and [Brand]'s ex-wife, thereby falling within the CSRA's definition of a past due support obligation. Accordingly, the probation office adjusted the previous restitution figure to include the lump sum, and set the final amount at $4,050,963.41. Brand objected to the increase in restitution, arguing that the $3.935 million lump sum award was not child support in toto, but rather was meant to cover a multitude of non-support-related purposes. Brand raised this argument at his sentencing hearing and also claimed to be incapable of paying a multi-million dollar restitution obligation. The magistrate judge rejected Brand's contentions and agreed with the PSI's calculation of the restitution amount to include the monthly child support arrearage in addition to the lump sum award. With respect to Brand's ability to pay, the magistrate judge noted that there is no explanation for what happened to the trail of monies that the trial evidence linked to Brand. Accordingly, the magistrate judge ordered Brand to pay restitution in the amount of $4,050,963.41 to Margrethe and sentenced him to time served. This appeal followed.