Opinion ID: 797216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Unlawful Restitution Order

Text: 23 Because we find that Ms. Gordon's appeal is outside the scope of her waiver of appellate rights, we may proceed directly to the merits of her claim. This court reviews the legality of a restitution order de novo. United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1278 (10th Cir.1999). Because Ms. Gordon did not object to the amount of restitution at sentencing, we review for plain error. United States v. Mitchell, 429 F.3d 952, 961 (10th Cir.2005). 24 In the past, we have implied that the MVRA does not set a statutory maximum on the amount of restitution. See United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134, 1144 n. 1 (10th Cir.2004); see also United States v. Sharp, 442 F.3d 946, 952 (6th Cir.2006). In reality, however, the MVRA does set a statutory maximum on the amount of restitution — it is, absent two exceptions discussed below, the amount causally linked to the offense of conviction. 5 The MVRA states in relevant part: 25 [W]hen sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense . . . the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim's estate. . . . For the purposes of this section, the term victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of an offense for which restitution may be ordered . . . . 26 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1),(2) (emphasis added). 27 Courts have no inherent power to order restitution; they may only do so as authorized by statute. Nichols, 169 F.3d at 1278. Interpreting the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), we held that restitution is authorized only for losses caused by conduct underlying the offense of conviction. United States v. Brewer, 983 F.2d 181, 183-84 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 420, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990)). In Hughey, the defendant was indicted for multiple counts of fraudulent credit card use but pled guilty to only one count. 495 U.S. at 413, 110 S.Ct. 1979. The Supreme Court held that the defendant could be ordered to pay restitution under the VWPA only for the amount of loss resulting from the count to which he pled guilty. Id. at 422, 110 S.Ct. 1979. 28 The MVRA, which amended the VWPA in 1996, did not change the general rule that restitution may only be ordered for losses caused by the offense of conviction. In only two cases does the MVRA authorize restitution to be paid to someone other than the victim (or his estate) of the offense of conviction. The first is where the criminal conduct involves a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2); see also id. (extending restitution in such cases to any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct); United States v. Fogg, 409 F.3d 1022, 1028 (8th Cir.2005) (Unless the charged offense has a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity as an element, . . . the restitution order may only cover losses from the specific offense for which the defendant was indicted and convicted.). In this case, the offense of conviction does not contain as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity. 29 Second, the MVRA authorizes restitution to persons other than the victim of the offense, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(3). We do not think such a promise can be found in the plain language of Ms. Gordon's plea agreement, although such a promise could have been included. The plea agreement stated, the Court must order the payment of restitution to the victim(s) of the offense.  I.R. Doc. 8, at 2 (emphasis added). Additionally, Ms. Gordon's petition to enter a guilty plea stated, the judge may require you to make restitution to any victim of the offense.  R. Doc. 9, at 4 (emphasis added). It is noteworthy that the plea agreement and petition to enter a guilty plea refer to the offense in the singular. Ms. Gordon pled guilty to only one offense, and that was the illegal use of Mastercard # 9512. That offense had only one victim, and the loss to that victim caused by the offense was only $7,950.98. If Ms. Gordon agreed to pay restitution to multiple victims, it was only to the extent that the single count to which she pled guilty caused loss to multiple victims. Although it could have been so structured, nowhere in the plea agreement, the petition to enter a guilty plea, or the plea colloquy did Ms. Gordon ever agree to pay restitution for losses caused by acts of credit card fraud other than the single count to which she pled guilty. 30 Although it may be argued that Ms. Gordon's post-plea conduct at the sentencing hearing indicates she was willing to pay restitution to all the victims of her alleged credit card fraud, that is not the agreement that was entered into. When a contract is sufficiently clear on its face, we cannot reach a contrary interpretation based on post-hoc statements of intent or subsequent actions. See Restatement, supra, at § 203(b) (noting that express terms are given greater weight than course of performance). If the language of Ms. Gordon's plea agreement was ambiguous, her post-plea conduct might be relevant. See United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 551-52 (3d Cir.2002). But, in this case, the plain language of the plea agreement shows Ms. Gordon did not agree to pay restitution beyond the amount causally linked to the single count to which she pled guilty. Thus, the district court was only authorized to order restitution in the amount of $7,950.98. As a result, the $68,698.52 restitution order is unlawful in these circumstances. 31 The government urges that we should exercise discretion and not recognize plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that appellate courts may decline to reverse plain error). It suggests that our power to recognize plain error should be used sparingly, and only in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would result. See id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Aside from the fact that an unlawful restitution order does constitute a miscarriage of justice because it is beyond the remedy authorized by statute, see Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327, this court has, on several previous occasions, held that an unlawful restitution order constitutes plain error, see, e.g., United States v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046, 1057 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Guthrie, 64 F.3d 1510, 1515 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411, 1421-22 (10th Cir.1992). We see no reason to deviate from that precedent. The district court's restitution order is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for entry of an order in the amount of $7,950.98.