Opinion ID: 24
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellate Review of Restitution Orders

Text: Appellants first contend that a petition for mandamus is not the exclusive remedy for crime victims seeking to challenge a district court's restitution order. Rather, they contend that the CVRA offers a procedural choice: petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus on an expedited basis, or file an appeal in the normal course under the general appellate jurisdictional statute, which grants us jurisdiction over all final decisions of the federal district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. At the outset, we clarify that the issue before us is not whether we lack jurisdiction under § 1291, which constrains what may be appealed, not who may bring such appeals; the issues of jurisdiction under § 1291 and non-party appellate rights are distinct. United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1311, 1312 (10th Cir.2008)(emphasis added). Instead, our inquiry turns on whether appellants, as crime victims denied their right to restitution under the federal statutes, may appeal the restitution component of a defendant's criminal sentence. See id. at 1312. The rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled. Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 98 L.Ed.2d 629 (1988) (per curiam, civil judgment); Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 77, 108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327 (1987) ([O]ne who is not a party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal therefrom.). Exceptions to this general rule exist, typically in the context of civil disputes, but they are few and far between. Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB, 226 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir.2000) (limited exception for nonparty challenge of denial of motion to intervene); see Nat'l Ass'n of Chain Drug Stores v. New Eng. Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, 582 F.3d 30, 41 (1st Cir.2009)(explaining, in context of civil claims, that the fact that a decision against a defendant may practically impact a third party is not ordinarily enough for appellant status absent intervention or joinder in the trial court). Notwithstanding the rights reflected in the restitution statutes, crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding. See, e.g., United States v. Palma, 760 F.2d 475, 479 (3d Cir.1985) (under VWPA, the victim . . . is not made a party to the sentencing proceeding); United States v. Brown, 744 F.2d 905, 909-10 (2d Cir.1984); see also Ziskind, 471 F.3d at 270. Thus, the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant's criminal sentence. See Hunter, 548 F.3d at 1311; United States v. Grundhoefer, 916 F.2d 788, 793 (2d Cir.1990) (The victim as a non-party is accorded only a limited presence at a sentencing proceeding and has no right to appeal an inadequate remedy.); United States v. Franklin, 792 F.2d 998, 999-1000 (11th Cir.1986) (dismissing appeal because [a]ppellant cites no statute, including the [VWPA], and we find none, that would give us the authority to entertain an appeal by a victim . . . who was not a party to the sentencing proceeding in the district court); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (providing that the government and the defendant, under appropriate circumstances, may appeal a criminal sentence). Appellants maintain that the rule against appellate review by non-parties does not apply to crime victims seeking to challenge restitution orders, essentially because those orders affect their substantial rights as reflected in the restitution statutes. But the cases they rely on do not support this premise. First, appellants point to a collection of civil cases in which courts have entertained direct appeals by non-parties. E.g., Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 122 S.Ct. 2005, 153 L.Ed.2d 27 (2002)(permitting unnamed class member to appeal class action settlement). However, as the Tenth Circuit has aptly explained: On the issue of non-party appeals, there is an important distinction between civil and criminal cases. Civil cases often implicate the pecuniary rights of non-parties, such as the unnamed class member in Devlin. . . . Criminal trials, on the other hand, place an individual citizen against the United States government. While non-parties may have an interest in aspects of the case, they do not have a tangible interest in the outcome. This distinction is evidenced by our procedural rules. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow non-parties to intervene to assert their rights. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contain no comparable provision. This distinction recognizes that non-parties often have a unique interest in civil cases. Because non-parties do not have a comparable unique interest in the outcome of criminal trials, we do not consider Devlin or [similar civil cases] persuasive [authority in support of the proposition that crime victims may bring an appeal of a restitution sentence]. Hunter, 548 F.3d at 1312-13. Second, appellants cite a handful of cases in which courts of appeals have permitted non-parties to challenge collateral orders issued in the course of criminal sentencing proceedings, but not the sentence itself. For example, in United States v. Berger , the Ninth Circuit asserted without discussion that it had proper jurisdiction under § 1291 over an appeal brought by a defendant's wife, not a crime victim, who challenged a district court's order regarding the distribution of proceeds from an illegal sale of her husband's assets to the victims of [his] fraud who were entitled to receive restitution. 574 F.3d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.2009). In In re Siler, the Sixth Circuit entertained a direct appeal brought by crime victims seeking to inspect a defendant's PSR pursuant to their rights under the CVRA, although they were not technically parties below and despite the general rule that non-parties may not bring an appeal, because the district court effectively treated the [victims] like intervening parties and decided the merits of their motions. 571 F.3d 604, 608 (6th Cir.2009). Neither case involved a crime victim's direct appeal of a criminal restitution sentence, nor would a result in the third party's favor have required the court to disturb the sentence imposed. Finally, appellants point to United States v. Cienfuegos, which involved a direct appeal of the restitution component of a defendant's sentence brought by the government on behalf of a crime victim under the MVRA. 462 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 2006). Cienfuegos provides no support for the proposition that crime victims have the right to bring a direct appeal of a criminal sentence. None of the cases on which appellants rely call into question the default rule that crime victims have no right to directly appeal a defendant's criminal sentence, under the CVRA or otherwise. Rather, the CVRA expressly provides crime victims with a limited avenue to challenge the restitution component of a defendant's sentence through a petition for a writ of mandamus, and states that in the normal course the government may assert victims' rights on their behalf in a direct appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), (d)(5); see TAMA v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979)([W]here a statute expressly provides a particular remedy of remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 175, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)([T]he appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and [] if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed.). Accordingly, we join the Tenth Circuit to hold that individuals claiming to be victims under the CVRA may not appeal from the alleged denial of their rights under that statute except through a petition for a writ of mandamus. Hunter, 548 F.3d at 1309; see also In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123, 1129 (10th Cir.2008)(While the CVRA provides individuals seeking review of a district court's `victim status' decision with mandamus review, it simultaneously affords the government with the ability to obtain ordinary appellate review of the same decision.). The government alone may bring a direct appeal of a defendant's sentence on behalf of a victim denied his rights under the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(5); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742.