Opinion ID: 681322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Delay in Filing the Restitution Motion.

Text: 58 Rice also contends that the district court should have dismissed the government's restitution motion as untimely, as it was filed some thirty-two months after sentencing. See United States v. Weir, 861 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089, 109 S.Ct. 1555, 103 L.Ed.2d 858 (1989) (Shortly after the guilty verdict is the time to make an order of restitution.) (internal quotations omitted); United States v. Prendergast, 979 F.2d 1289, 1293 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in leaving the restitution open in case the defendant later develop[ed] an ability to pay and remanding for an immediate resolution of the issue); United States v. Sasnett, 925 F.2d 392, 398-99 (11th Cir.1991) (same). 59 These cases are inapposite. The district court did not leave the restitution issue open indefinitely in case Rice and Rice Aircraft later became solvent; it merely delayed resolution of the restitution issue pending Rice's appeal to this court and petition to the Supreme Court. This decision was not unreasonable, as the outcome of these appeals might have changed the restitution issues. Rice has not shown that they were prejudiced by the delay or that the delay was unreasonable. 60