Opinion ID: 559981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fines Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3623

Text: 48 As part of the sentence, the district court ordered restitution of $3,101.24 and imposed a fine of $250,000. Dr. Hooshmand concedes that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3623 authorized the district court to impose a fine of $250,000. He argues, however, that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3622 required the district court to make specific factual findings before imposing the fine. 13 Section 3622 requires a court to consider nine enumerated factors when imposing a fine. 14 This Court has not, however, determined whether the statute requires a court to make specific factual findings when imposing a fine. 49 The interpretation of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154, 157 (11th Cir.1990). A sentence that falls within statutory limits, however, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ard, 731 F.2d 718, 727 (11th Cir.1984). 50 Dr. Hooshmand correctly notes that the Fourth Circuit has held that the use of the word shall in Section 3622 requires the district court to make specific factual findings for each of the nine factors enumerated in the statute. See United States v. Harvey, 885 F.2d 181, 182-183 (4th Cir.1989). The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have held, however, that a court is not required to make oral or written findings regarding these factors. See United States v. Weir, 861 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089, 109 S.Ct. 1555, 103 L.Ed.2d 858 (1989); United States v. Condon, 816 F.2d 434, 435-36 (8th Cir.1987). 51 The plain language of Section 3622 states only that the district court shall consider the listed factors. The statute does not state that the court shall make factual findings. In United States v. Hairston, 888 F.2d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir.1989), this Court analyzed the shall consider language of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3579(a), 3580(a) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). 15 Relying on the shall consider language of Section 3580, this Court refused to adopt a rigid rule requiring district courts to make findings of fact whenever they impose an order of restitution. Id. Rather, we held that no specific findings are necessary so long as the record is adequate for this Court to review the district court's restitution order. Id. at 1353. In so holding, we rejected the analysis of the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Bruchey, 810 F.2d 456, 458 (4th Cir.1987), which was the basis of the Fourth Circuit's decision in Harvey, supra. After examining the record in this case, we hold that it is sufficient to support the fine imposed by the district court. J. Jencks Act Motion 52 Prior to oral argument, Dr. Hooshmand submitted a motion to this Court seeking a ruling that the government violated its duties under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500, by failing to produce handwritten notes from an interview with government witness Hattie Sullivan once Ms. Sullivan had testified on direct examination. 53 Once a government witness has testified on direct examination, Section 3500 requires the government to produce, on motion by the defendant, any statement of the witness which relates to the subject matter to which the witness has testified. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500(b). 54 We have reviewed the handwritten notes from the government's interview of Hattie Sullivan. We find that these notes do not represent a statement as defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500(e). There is no evidence that the notes were adopted by Ms. Sullivan and they do not represent any sort of recording of any statements made by Ms. Sullivan. See United States v. Martino, 648 F.2d 367, 387 (5th Cir. June 1981), aff'd sub nom. on other grounds, 464 U.S. 16, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983). Moreover, a review of the trial transcript reveals that Dr. Hooshmand's counsel made no motion to the district court seeking production of these notes as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500(b). Finally, our review of the notes reveals that they contain no impeaching material and therefore Dr. Hooshmand suffered no prejudice by his counsel's lack of access to these notes during cross-examination of Ms. Sullivan. Accordingly, we deny Dr. Hooshmand's motion to compel disclosure of the government's notes from its interview with Hattie Sullivan.