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

Heading: analysis

Text: Marks contends that because restitution is part of the criminal sentence, United States v. Ramilo, 986 F.2d 333, 336 (9th Cir. 1993), the district court’s entry of the restitution order was part of “sentencing,” at which he had the right to be present and the right to speak on his own behalf. Assuming, without deciding, that the district court’s failure to provide Marks with an opportunity to be present and to speak on his own behalf when it entered the restitution order violated Marks’ statutory or constitutional rights, we nevertheless find in favor of the government because any such violation was harmless error. [17] Marks contends that the district court’s failure to provide him with an opportunity to be present and to speak on his own behalf was not harmless because it prevented him from 7 Federal Rule of Criminal procedure 32(i)(4)(A) provides in relevant part that, “[b]efore imposing sentence, the court must . . . (ii) address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). 6884 UNITED STATES v. MARKS contesting the calculation of the restitution amount.8 However, the record reveals that Marks was not so prevented: after the government provided Marks, more than three weeks before entry of the final restitution order, with a proposed amended judgment setting forth what would become the final restitution amount, Marks filed a written objection with the district court in which he complained that the government had failed to provide evidence supporting its calculation of the amount of restitution due the IRS and the 145 defrauded AAA clients. Marks fails to explain what objections to the calculation of the restitution amount he could have made that he did not already make in his written objection. [18] Accordingly, we find that there is no reasonable possibility that prejudice resulted from any error by the district court and that any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Gunning, 401 F.3d at 1147; RosalesRodriguez, 289 F.3d at 1109.