Opinion ID: 718339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Terms of the Restitution Order

Text: 35 To guide the district court on remand, we also briefly address Giwah's alternative argument, that ordering payments of at least 15% of annual earnings is inherently improper. Giwah argues that the order must be for a flat rate of 15% if it is to reflect his ability to pay. 36 This argument is logically flawed. That the court allows Giwah to pay more than 15% of his earnings does not mean the court requires Giwah to pay more than 15%. Giwah is on the hook for the whole amount regardless of how he pays. By ordering at least 15%, the district court simply articulated what Giwah must do in order to avoid violating the terms of supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f) & (g), and to avoid other ramifications of failure to comply with a restitution order (such as suspension of all federal benefits pursuant to § 3663(i)). 37 The district court may only order a schedule of restitution payments during the five years following the conclusion of Giwah's prison term. 2 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f)(2)(B). Ordering minimum payments during the time periods specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f) clarifies what the defendant must do in order to continue to enjoy conditional liberty and other federal benefits. It is certainly in the defendant's best interests to pay the full amount ordered as quickly as possible. After that time period expires, the defendant is subject to the laws regarding the enforcement of fines and money judgments.