Opinion ID: 681322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: defense industrial supply center (disc)

Text: 55 DISC, another Rice customer, did not show that any particular fasteners were accompanied by fraudulent test reports, but sought restitution for the costs of testing its Rice-supplied fasteners. DISC, unlike Grumman, was apparently able to conduct sample testing. The district court awarded DISC the cost of sample testing. 56 Rice argues that the DISC award was improper because DISC sought restitution for testing fasteners purchased in 1988, after the conspiracy allegedly ended. However, at sentencing, the district court specifically found that [a]lthough reprocessing ceased by the end of 1983 or early 1984, over seven and a half million of these parts had been reprocessed. The sale of these parts apparently ceased and I find they ceased sometime in 1988. Defendants concede that these factual findings define the scope of their conduct and that the government has been unable to trace some three million reprocessed parts. The district court therefor did not err in finding that because of Rice's criminal conduct, DISC had to incur testing costs in 1988.VII. OTHER ISSUES 57
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
61 Rice also argues that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on restitution. However, [n]either the [Victim and Witness Protection] Act nor Rule 32 requires the sentencing court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of restitution. United States v. Keith, 754 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 829, 106 S.Ct. 93, 88 L.Ed.2d 76 (1985); see also United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846, 855 n. 11 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002, 110 S.Ct. 561, 107 L.Ed.2d 556 (1989) ([N]othing in the text or legislative history of the VWPA [ ] indicate[s] that Congress intended the sentencing hearing to be transformed into a second trial on the issue of restitution. If anything, congressional intent appears to have been quite the contrary.). 62 Rather, the defendant must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard on the restitution issue. 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); see also Cloud, 872 F.2d at 855. Here, the record indicates that Rice had ample notice and opportunity to respond. Rice had three months to respond to the government's motion, filed an answer and numerous documents on the issue, and vigorously argued the legal and evidentiary issues at oral argument. Rice knew restitution was an issue at the time of the plea agreement, and successfully negotiated a plea bargain limiting its liability. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it could resolve the restitution issue based on the parties' voluminous documentary evidence and written affidavits. 63