Opinion ID: 3052174
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: [13] The ninety-day requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) is part of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A - 3664, which makes restitution mandatory, without regard to a defendant’s economic situation, to identifiable victims who have suffered physical injury or pecuniary loss from particular crimes, including offenses involving fraud or deceit. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(A)(a)(1), (c), § 3664(f)(1)(A); United States v. Moreland, 509 F.3d 1201, 1222 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 18 U.S.C. § 3664, which sets forth the procedure for issuing and enforcing an order of restitution, provides in relevant part: (d)(5) 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. If the victim subsequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for an amended restitution order. Such order may be granted only upon a showing of good cause for the failure to include such losses in the initial claim for restitutionary relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). UNITED STATES v. MARKS 6881 [14] “The ‘intended beneficiaries’ of the MVRA’s procedural mechanisms ‘are the victims, not the victimizers.’ ” Moreland, 509 F.3d at 1223 (quoting United States v. Grimes, 173 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 1999)). Thus, we have recognized that “ ‘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.’ ” Moreland, 509 F.3d at 122324 (quoting United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we have concluded that “because the procedural requirements of section 3664 were designed to protect victims, not defendants, the failure to comply with them is harmless error absent actual prejudice to the defendant.’ ” Moreland, 509 F.3d at 1224-25 (quoting Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d at 1163). Here, it is undisputed that the district court failed to comply with the ninety-day requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). However, we conclude that the error was harmless because Marks has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced. See Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d at 1162-63. While Marks contends that the delay in entering the restitution order affected his rights to be present when the order was entered and to contest the restitution amount, he fails to explain why that is so. Nor does Marks contend that he suffered any other prejudice from the delay in entering the restitution order. For example, Marks does not claim that any documents or witnesses had become unavailable after the ninety-day period elapsed, or that his financial status had changed. See Moreland, 509 F.3d at 1225. Moreover, Marks was provided “the functional equivalent of the notice required under section 3664(d)(5),” Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d at 1163, because the district court informed Marks orally at the sentencing hearing and in the written judgment that he would have to pay a substantial amount of restitution, 6882 UNITED STATES v. MARKS see Moreland, 509 F.3d at 1225. In fact, the amount of restitution that Marks was ultimately ordered to pay ($30,738,395) was substantially less than the amount initially cited by the district court ($42,311,742). [15] Thus, Marks was not prejudiced by the delay in entering the restitution order. Accordingly, the district court’s error in failing to comply with the ninety-day requirement of § 3664(d)(5) was harmless.