Opinion ID: 695152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Section 3664 Factors

Text: 45 Williams, Ross, Lo and Khalil argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the financial resources of the defendants and the needs of the defendants' dependents, as required under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664, when imposing restitution. We agree. Section 3663(a) provides that the district court, in sentencing a defendant, may order that the defendant make restitution to any victim of such offense. Section 3664(a) provides that in determining whether to order restitution and its amount, the sentencing court 46 shall consider the amount of the loss sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant's dependents, and such other factors as the court deems appropriate. 47 [T]here is no requirement that specific findings be made on each factor, United States v. Gelb, 944 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir.1991), and the defendant bears the burden of proof as to these factors, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(d). Nevertheless, the record must demonstrate that the court has considered these factors in ordering restitution. United States v. Tortora, 994 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir.1993). 48 Here, the amount of restitution ordered by the district court is equivalent to the loss occasioned by each defendant. The record does not indicate whether the court considered the financial resources of the defendants or the financial needs and earning ability of the defendants and their dependents. It appears that the district court simply identified the amount owed ... and imposed [the] full amount on the defendants, and this is an abuse of discretion. See Tortora, 994 F.2d at 81. Thus, we must remand for the district court to consider the statutory factors that bear on the issue of restitution. Upon remand, the court may consider the amount of forfeiture each physician-appellant was ordered to pay as well. See United States v. Porcelli, 865 F.2d 1352, 1355, 1364-65 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 810, 110 S.Ct. 53, 107 L.Ed.2d 22 (1989). 49 The district court ordered that defendants Williams, Khalil, and Lo make their restitution payments according to a schedule determined by the Probation Department as a special condition of their supervised release. However, we have recently held that the sentencing court cannot authoriz[e] a probation officer to make post-sentencing decisions as to either the amount of restitution, or the scheduling of installment payments. United States v. Porter, 41 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). Therefore, the district court must revise its restitution orders to comply with our ruling in Porter. The district court also authorized the Probation Department to schedule the payments for Khan's restitution order. Accordingly, we remand that portion of Khan's sentence to allow the court to comply with Porter. See id. 50 As to defendant-appellant Jacqueline Otero, we grant only so much of the government's motion for summary affirmance as relates to her conviction and to her sentence in regard to the district court's determination of loss attributable to her and the imposition of a two-point enhancement for more than minimal planning, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1(b). We deny so much of the government's motion for summary affirmance as relates to the restitution order in which the court authorized the Probation Department to set a schedule of payments. As discussed above, this practice is contrary to our ruling in Porter, 41 F.3d at 71, and we therefore remand for the district court to determine her schedule of payments of restitution. We also deny the motion of Otero's attorney to be relieved from representing Otero on this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 51 We have considered all of the defendants' other arguments as well as their motions in this court and find them to be without merit.