Opinion ID: 220160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Government's Appeals

Text: We ordinarily would review the district court's special conditions de novo. See United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879, 882 (8th Cir.2010). In Palmer's case, we review the special condition for plain error because the government failed to object to the special condition at her sentencing. See United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402, 405 (8th Cir.2011). To show plain error, the government must establish (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected [the government's] substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, ___, S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (internal marks omitted)).

In relevant part, the MVRA authorizes the district court to direct the defendant to make ... partial payments at specified intervals. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(3)(A). When we are able to ascertain the plain meaning of statutory text, we apply that meaning. See United States v. I.L., 614 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2010) (The Supreme Court has `stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.') (quoting Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992)). The government essentially argues the district court's special conditions lack specified intervals because the defendants' payments are tied to a future contingency and are not set at predetermined moments in time. We agree. The MVRA does not define specified intervals, but the plain and unambiguous meaning of the phrase connotes a temporal reach. One dictionary defines specified as [t]hat is or has been definitely or specifically mentioned, determined, fixed, or settled and interval as [t]he period of time between two events, actions, etc. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed. 2011). The MVRA's requirement of specified intervals necessitates preordained dates and may not be conditioned on the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of future events at unknown points in time. Otherwise the interval is not specified. As the government argues, the practical effect of the district court's special condition is to avoid the MVRA's requirement that restitution be mandatory by reliev[ing] the defendants from their minimum statutory obligation to make payments at regular intervals toward the entire $200,000 restitution amount. The special condition requires the child to incur out-of-pocket expenses and seek reimbursement each time she needs counseling, which reasonably could deter or discourage her from receiving help. With regard to Palmer's appeal, the district court's error in imposing the special condition is plain. Without question, an objection by counsel could have focused the district court on these issues, but a restitution order must reflect an informed judgment consistent with the facts of the case and the law. United States v. Kaydahzinne, 334 Fed.Appx. 144, 150 (10th Cir.2009). The special condition manifestly violates the law. In our discretion, we elect to afford the government plain error relief in Palmer's case because allowing the special condition in Palmer's case, but not in Barkau's case, would seriously affect the fairness of these judicial proceedings. See Marcus, 560 U.S. at ___, 130 S.Ct. at 2164. See also Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 362, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). Plain error relief here is also consistent with our solemn statutory duty to safeguard the child's right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6), (b)(1). [6]
We vacate the district court's alternative restitution orders as unenforceable attempts to impinge on the government's right to appeal. See Bayless v. Estelle, 583 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1978) (The right to appeal any ... decision of any court is a sacred right that must remain free, open and unfettered and without fear, threats or penalty.) (quotation omitted). As we discuss below, the denial of all restitution to this child, who suffered untold sexual abuse, humiliation, and torture, would be contrary to law and clearly erroneous on this record. The award of restitution is required by law, 18 U.S.C. § 1593 and § 3663A(a)(1), (b)(2), and the evidence in the record sufficiently supports the $200,000 assessment.