Opinion ID: 1311468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court imposed restitution at sentencing.

Text: Defendants first argue that the district court did not order restitution at sentencing and thus lacked authority to enter post-judgment orders of restitution. We read the record differently. During the sentencing hearing for Kuo, the court stated before imposing sentence: The court is not going to impose a fine here, again, because any funds that the defendant may have the court will place to the benefit of the victims under the victim restitution laws. During the first half of Wang's sentencing hearing, before she was sentenced, the prosecutor confirmed with the court that the government had 60 days within which to file a motion for restitution. When announcing Wang's sentence, the court then said that it is not going to impose a fine because the defendant is going to be compelled to assist to pay for certain enumerat[ed] victim restitution matters which the court sees [as] more important in this case. The district court further stated that the government's motion for restitution will be filed and the government is given leave to file that within the appropriate statutory time. Defendants argue that the foregoing statements merely reflect the court's intention to order restitution, but do not actually announce that Mr. Kuo and Ms. Wang must make restitution as part of their sentences. We reject Defendants' cramped reading of the colloquy. The court plainly expressed its inclusion of restitution as a part of the pronouncement of sentence. Defendants further argue that the district court did not order restitution at sentencing because the written judgment does not reflect it. On the judgment form, the district court did not check the box showing that restitution was ordered and that the amount would be determined at a later time. But in this circuit, [w]here the oral pronouncement of a defendant's sentence is unambiguous, but differs from the written sentence, the oral sentence controls. United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (1994) (citing United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993)). Here, the district court unambiguously expressed that Defendants would have to pay restitution. The oral pronouncement of sentence ordering restitution is controlling.