Opinion ID: 206193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of Restitution Award

Text: When a victim's losses are not ascertainable by the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the MVRA provides that the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim's losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Magistrate Judge Tomlinson held Qurashi's restitution hearing on February 11, 2009, more than 90 days following his October 29, 2008 sentencing, and the district court did not enter the restitution order until September 30, 2009. The district court rejected Qurashi's objection that the restitution determination was untimely, which he renews on appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court decided Dolan v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2533, 177 L.Ed.2d 108 (2010). Interpreting § 3664(d)(5), the Court held that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitutionat least where . . . the sentencing court made clear prior to the deadline's expiration that it would order restitution, leaving open (for more than 90 days) only the amount. Dolan, 130 S.Ct. at 2537. Here, the district court made clear at sentencing that it would order restitution, and therefore retained the power to do so. The Supreme Court further provided that, in the unlikely instances where that delay does cause the defendant prejudiceperhaps by depriving him of evidence to rebut the claimed restitution amountthe defendant remains free to ask the court to take that fact into account upon review. Id. at 2542. Although Qurashi argues that he was prejudiced by the delay, we find no evidence of prejudice and therefore conclude that the district court properly asserted its authority to award restitution.