Opinion ID: 1311468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The district court properly ordered restitution despite delay.

Text: Defendants next aver that the district court erred by failing to quantify the victims' losses in a timely manner. We are not persuaded. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a), titled Procedure for issuance and enforcement of order of restitution, provides in pertinent part: For orders of restitution under this title, the court shall order the probation officer to obtain and include in its presentence report, or in a separate report, as the court may direct, information sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in fashioning a restitution order. The report shall include, to the extent practicable, a complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and information relating to the economic circumstances of each defendant. (Emphasis added.) Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) expressly contemplates that the necessary information may not be available by the time the court imposes sentence: If the victim's losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Government or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim's losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. Defendants' sentences were imposed on January 16, 2008, so the 90-day period to which § 3664(d)(5) refers ended on April 15, 2008. The court granted restitution in part on April 30, 2008, and filed a final order granting restitution on June 30, 2008. Thus, the court exceeded the 90-day window described by § 3664(d)(5). But our precedent instructs that the failure to comply with [the procedural requirements of section 3664] is harmless error absent actual prejudice to the defendant. United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). That principle follows because the procedural requirements of section 3664 were designed to protect victims, not defendants. Id. Specifically, `the purpose behind the statutory ninety-day limit on the determination of victims' losses is not to protect defendants from drawn-out sentencing proceedings or to establish finality; rather, it is to protect crime victims from the willful dissipation of defendants' assets.' Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting United States v. Zakhary, 357 F.3d 186, 191 (2d Cir.2004)). Here, Defendants received oral notice at sentencing that they would be ordered to pay restitution. See id. (holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required). Defendants have made no showing of prejudice occasioned by the minimal delay in this case. As a result, their contention that the district court imposed restitution too late must fail.